[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140110121932.GC4132@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:19:32 +0100
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bonding: reset the slave's mtu when its be changed
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 07:32:51PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>All slave should have the same mtu with mastet's, and the bond do it when
>enslave the slave, but the user could change the slave's mtu, it will cause
>the master and slave have different mtu, althrough in AB mode, it does not
>matter if the slave is not the current slave, but in other mode, it is incorrect,
>so reset the slave's mtu like the master set.
Why "net"? It's not a bugfix, it's a feature, and really discussable.
Also, wrt the actual change - why do you think it's incorrect for slaves in
bonding mode other than AB to have different MTU values? I don't see any
reason for it, from the top of the head.
>
>Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
>Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>index 398e299..e7b5bcf 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>@@ -2882,18 +2882,17 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
> */
> break;
> case NETDEV_CHANGEMTU:
>- /*
>- * TODO: Should slaves be allowed to
>- * independently alter their MTU? For
>- * an active-backup bond, slaves need
>- * not be the same type of device, so
>- * MTUs may vary. For other modes,
>- * slaves arguably should have the
>- * same MTUs. To do this, we'd need to
>- * take over the slave's change_mtu
>- * function for the duration of their
>- * servitude.
>+ /* All slave should have the same mtu
>+ * as master.
> */
>+ if (slave->dev->mtu != bond->dev->mtu) {
If we've got the event then it means it was changed to something different.
No need to verify.
>+ int res;
>+ slave->original_mtu = slave->dev->mtu;
If we're refusing to apply the *new* mtu, then why should we save it as the
original? The original_mtu is the mtu that the slave had before it was
enslaved.
>+ res = dev_set_mtu(slave->dev, bond->dev->mtu);
>+ if (res)
>+ pr_debug("Error %d calling dev_set_mtu for slave %s\n",
>+ res, slave->dev->name);
>+ }
Also, bonding should be vocal about changing forcibly the mtu - otherwise
we'd end up with silently dropping the changes:
ifconfig eth0 mtu 9000
echo $?
-> 0
ifconfig eth0
MTU: 1500
or something like that, it will pass it up, refusing changes:
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index e06c445..0b36045 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -2846,19 +2846,8 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
*/
break;
case NETDEV_CHANGEMTU:
- /*
- * TODO: Should slaves be allowed to
- * independently alter their MTU? For
- * an active-backup bond, slaves need
- * not be the same type of device, so
- * MTUs may vary. For other modes,
- * slaves arguably should have the
- * same MTUs. To do this, we'd need to
- * take over the slave's change_mtu
- * function for the duration of their
- * servitude.
- */
- break;
+ /* don't permit slaves to change their MTU */
+ return NOTIFY_BAD;
case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
/*
* TODO: handle changing the primary's name
> break;
> case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
> /*
>--
>1.8.0
>
>
--
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