netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 2/2] bonding: allow user-controlled output slave selection

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 24 May 2010 11:31:08 -0400
From:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 2/2] bonding: allow user-controlled output
	slave selection

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 06:21:54PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >	For your patch, I'm exploring the idea of not setting
> >IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE on "inactive" slaves for an "all_slaves_active"
> >option (I think that's a more descriptive name than "keep_all") instead
> >of adding a new KEEP_ALL flag bit to priv_flags.  Did you consider this
> >methodology and exclude it for some reason?
> 
> 	Following up to myself, I coded up approximately what I was
> talking about.  This doesn't require the extra priv_flag, and the sysfs
> _store is a little more complicated, but this appears to work (testing
> with ping -f after clearing the switch's MAC table to induce traffic
> flooding).  I didn't change the option name from "keep_all" here, but as
> far as the functionality goes, this seems to do what I think you want it
> to.
> 
> 	-J

This looks good to me, Jay.  I tested the patch here along with the
patch that started this thread and it works as expected.

Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>

It seems like you were willing to take the patch that started this
thread rather than a change that adds a new mode.  If we agree that this
is the correct direction, can you take a look at the patch and decide if
you are willing to ACK it as-is or if more changes are needed?

Thanks,

-andy

--
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