[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32303.1339450094@death.nxdomain>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:28:14 -0700
From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Tmljb2xhcyBkZSBQZXNsb8O8YW4=?=
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
cc: Weiping Pan <wpan@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] bonding:check mode when modify primary_reselect
Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com> wrote:
>Le 11/06/2012 22:56, Jay Vosburgh a écrit :
>> Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> May I suggest we only issue a warning, store the new value for
>>> primary_reselect, and avoid calling bond_select_active_slave(bond), if
>>> !USE_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)?
>>>
>>> That way, we do not add one more constraint on the order one must write into sysfs.
>>
>> I'm not in favor of changing anything here. There's already a
>> message that primary_reselect is being changed, I think that's
>> sufficient. The other similar cases don't issue warnings, e.g., setting
>> xmit_hash_policy doesn't complain if the mode is not one that utilizes
>> the hash.
>
>Agreed. Calling bond_select_active_slave(bond) looks safe, even for mode
>that does not use primary, so we don't need to change anything.
>
>Would you support other patch similar to 1/3 in this thread, that try to
>relax the order to write into sysfs for bonding?
Yes. As long as the setting takes effect when it should, I see
no problem with permitting options that are currently not applicable to
be changed at any time.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
--
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