[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220204195949.10e0ed50@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 19:59:49 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bonding: pair enable_port with
slave_arr_updates
On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:50:30 -0800 Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> >When 803.2ad mode enables a participating port, it should update
> >the slave-array. I have observed that the member links are participating
> >and are part of the active aggregator while the traffic is egressing via
> >only one member link (in a case where two links are participating). Via
> >krpobes I discovered that that slave-arr has only one link added while
kprobes
that that
The commit message would use some proof reading in general.
> >the other participating link wasn't part of the slave-arr.
> >
> >I couldn't see what caused that situation but the simple code-walk
> >through provided me hints that the enable_port wasn't always associated
> >with the slave-array update.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@...gle.com>
>
> Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Quacks like a fix, no? It's tagged for net-next and no fixes tag,
is there a reason why?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists