[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110302014009.GA2045@linuxace.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:40:09 -0800
From: Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com>
To: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, fubar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 net-next][v2] bonding: fix incorrect transmit queue
offset
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:31:36AM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > The patch works as expected. Do we have any agreement on a final version?
> >
>
> Thanks for the testing, Phil.
>
> I'm in favor of this patch as it does alert the admin that bonding may
> not have enough default queues, but it is not as verbose (backtrace et
> al) and likely to create bug reports as a message from WARN_ON.
> + if (net_ratelimit())
> + pr_warning("%s selects invalid tx queue %d. Consider"
> + " setting module option tx_queues > %d.",
> + dev->name, txq, dev->real_num_tx_queues);
It is unclear why we need to alert the admin to this situation (repeatedly).
Say the incoming nic has 32 queues, and is headed out a bond (with 16).
With your patch, we will log 50% of the time, no? What benefit is this
log spew?
While WARN_ONCE may be a bit extreme due to the backtrace, perhaps we
should at least throw a 'static bool warned' variable in there to lessen
the nuisance?
Phil
--
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