[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110421.211349.193726731.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: fubar@...ibm.com
Cc: bhutchings@...arflare.com, andy@...yhouse.net, kaber@...sh.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, brian.haley@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 3/3] bonding,ipv4,ipv6,vlan: Handle
NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER like NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS
From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:12:01 -0700
> Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
>
>>Why would we activate a slave without link up? Perhaps if the previous
>>active slave is removed?
>
> It's special sauce for Infiniband; I don't recall the details
> except that the submitter said that without it the initial gratuitous
> ARP could be lost. I didn't (and still don't) have IB hardware to test
> this on.
I vaguely remember this IB has too, but also forget the details.
If someone would get to the bottom of this and add a nice big comment
to the code, to prevent such difficulties in remembering exactly why we
do this in the future, I would very much appreciate it.
--
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