lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <7f230c69-dc15-ebaa-ff80-d4bde98488d3@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:04:46 -0400 From: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com> To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> Cc: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Bonding: add per port priority support On 4/12/22 11:55, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >>> diff --git a/include/net/bonding.h b/include/net/bonding.h >>> index b14f4c0b4e9e..4ff093fb2289 100644 >>> --- a/include/net/bonding.h >>> +++ b/include/net/bonding.h >>> @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ struct slave { >>> u32 speed; >>> u16 queue_id; >>> u8 perm_hwaddr[MAX_ADDR_LEN]; >>> + int prio; >> Do we want a struct slave_params here instead? That would allow us to >> define defaults in a central place and set them once instead of setting >> each parameter. > Presuming that you mean creating a sub-struct here and moving > some set of members of struct slave into it, I'm not sure I see the > benefit, as it would only exist here and not really be an independent > object. Am I misunderstanding? You are understanding correctly. The goal of this work is to eventually port the majority of the per-port parameters that exist in teaming to bonding, we have not determined the entire set that make sense. Thus there will be more than just port priority as a userspace configurable option. So I was attempting to ask if modeling the initial setting of these parameters like how `bonding_defaults` is used, made sense. file: drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c: void bond_setup(struct net_device *bond_dev) { struct bonding *bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev); spin_lock_init(&bond->mode_lock); bond->params = bonding_defaults; ... We can always refactor this area when there is another option that needs setting. -Jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists