[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D6D31BA.3000105@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:49:46 -0800
From: Joe Eykholt <joe.eykholt@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
CC: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...n-fcoe.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Open-FCoE] [PATCH] fcoe: correct checking for bonding
On 2/28/11 10:37 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:54:29PM CET, joe.eykholt@...il.com wrote:
>> On 2/28/11 9:15 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>> Jiri Pirko<jpirko@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Check for IFF_BONDING as this flag is set-up for all bonding devices.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko<jpirko@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 4 +---
>>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>>>> index 9f9600b..67714a4 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>>>> @@ -285,9 +285,7 @@ static int fcoe_interface_setup(struct fcoe_interface *fcoe,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /* Do not support for bonding device */
>>>> - if ((netdev->priv_flags& IFF_MASTER_ALB) ||
>>>> - (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE) ||
>>>> - (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_MASTER_8023AD)) {
>>>> + if (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_BONDING) {
>>>> FCOE_NETDEV_DBG(netdev, "Bonded interfaces not supported\n");
>>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Based on past discussions, I believe the intent of the code is
>>> to permit FCOE over bonding only for active-backup mode, and possibly
>>> for -xor/-rr as well.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the slave or the master is what's being tested
>>> here, so I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. I suspect it's the
>>> master, as I recall discussion of one configuration involving
>>> active-backup mode balancing FCOE traffic over both the active and
>>> inactive slaves. FCOE uses the "orig_dev" logic in __netif_receive_skb
>>> to have the packets delivered even on the nominally inactive slave.
>>>
>>> -J
>>>
>>> ---
>>> -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
>>
>> Right. That was the intent. It should work on the physical dev, but probably
>> not on the master of the bond.
>>
>> If you have a master/slave bond for IPv4 between eth1 and eth2, say,
>> and they are going to two different DCE (FCoE) switches, presumably on
>> different VSANs but with ultimate access to the same disks,
>> then you want to split the FCoE traffic in active/active
>> mode using separate FCoE instances on eth1 and eth2 even though IP
>> is using active/standby on bond0. This should work. But, putting fcoe
>> on bond0 isn't going to do what you want.
>>
>> However, it seems like the check above shouldn't be checking
>> IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE. I can't test this.
>
> OK. So I guess the right check should be for:
> (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_BONDING&& netdev->flags& IFF_MASTER)
I think that's OK. How about just checking for MASTER?
When is MASTER going to be set without BONDING?
Otherwise I'd add some parens or I might code this as:
if ((netdev->priv_flags & (IFF_BONDING | IFF_MASTER)) ==
(IFF_BONDING | IFF_MASTER))
Which is less clear, I know, but used to generate better code.
The compiler might generate the same code these days.
Not that this is performance-critical or anything.
> This would disable adding all bond devices (like bond0 etc) and allows
> to use enslaved physdevs.
>
> Note that checking for mode is irrelevant here. Mode could be easily
> changed later without fcoe knowing that.
>
> Jirka
Cheers,
Joe
--
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