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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 24 May 2010 13:08:40 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Cc:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 2/2] bonding: allow user-controlled output
 slave selection

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:31:08AM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> 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
> 
Awesome, thanks Andy!
Neil

> --
> 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
> 
--
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