[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <478D77D7.60703@miraclelinux.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:19:51 +0900
From: Makito SHIOKAWA <mshiokawa@...aclelinux.com>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] bonding: Fix work rearming
This patch is supposing a case that bond_mii_monitor() is invoked in
bond_open(), and after that, 0 is set to miimon via sysfs (see same place on
other monitors).
Though message in bonding_store_miimon() says miimon value 1-INT_MAX rejected,
but it looks like 0 can be accepted and monitor must be stopped in that case.
>> Change code not to rearm bond_mii_monitor() when value 0 is set for miimon.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Makito SHIOKAWA <mshiokawa@...aclelinux.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -2388,7 +2388,8 @@ void bond_mii_monitor(struct work_struct
>>
>> delay = ((bond->params.miimon * HZ) / 1000) ? : 1;
>> read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>> - queue_delayed_work(bond->wq, &bond->mii_work, delay);
>> + if (bond->params.miimon)
>> + queue_delayed_work(bond->wq, &bond->mii_work, delay);
>> }
>
> Maybe I miss something, but is this bond_mii_monitor() function
> supposed to be ever started if (!bond->params.miimon)? (IOW: isn't
> it enough to control this where the parameter is changed only?)
>
> Regards,
> Jarek P.
--
Makito SHIOKAWA
MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists