netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/3] bonding: support aggregator selection based on port priority

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aKKm6mgrmmFzoVlU@fedora>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 04:07:06 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
	Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/3] bonding: support aggregator selection
 based on port priority

On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 02:44:33PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >diff --git a/Documentation/networking/bonding.rst b/Documentation/networking/bonding.rst
> >index 874d8a4681ec..151c964562db 100644
> >--- a/Documentation/networking/bonding.rst
> >+++ b/Documentation/networking/bonding.rst
> >@@ -250,7 +250,14 @@ ad_select
> > 		ports (slaves).  Reselection occurs as described under the
> > 		"bandwidth" setting, above.
> > 
> >-	The bandwidth and count selection policies permit failover of
> >+	prio or 3
> >+
> >+		The active aggregator is chosen by the highest total sum of
> >+		actor port priorities across its active ports. Note this
> >+		priority is ad_actor_port_prio, not per port prio, which is
> >+		used for primary reselect.
> >+
> >+	The bandwidth, count and prio selection policies permit failover of
> 
> 	Needing to have a caveat here makes me think we should instead
> change the nomenclature.  Perhaps "lacp_port_prio"?  The standard hasn't
> had "ad" in its name for 20-ish years, so I don't think we should use
> "ad" in user facing options, and common usage these days is to just call
> it "lacp."
> 
> 	Simiarly, I don't think we need "ad" in the option name, either;
> the standard just calls it "actor_port_priority", is there a good reason

Sure, no problem on my side. I will update the option name.

Regards
Hangbin