[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZTSUh0vA1gVZFr3@Laptop-X1>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:58:42 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, davem@...emloft.net,
Denis Kirjanov <dkirjanov@...e.de>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] Bonding: add missed_max option
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 08:40:25AM +0000, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
>
> >Currently, we use hard code number to verify if we are in the
> >arp_interval timeslice. But some user may want to reduce/extend
> >the verify timeslice. With the similar team option 'missed_max'
> >the uers could change that number based on their own environment.
> >
> >The name of arp_misssed_max is not used as we may use this option for
> >Bonding IPv6 NS/NA monitor in future.
>
> Why reserve "arp_missed_max" for IPv6 which doesn't use ARP? If
> the option is for the ARP monitor, then prefixing it with "arp_" would
> be consistent with the other arp_* options.
I didn't explain it clearly. I want to say:
I'm not using arp_misssed_max as the new option name because I plan to add
bonding IPv6 NS/NA monitor in future. At that time the option "missed_max"
could be used for both IPv4/IPv6 monitor.
I will update the commit description in next version.
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists