[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aO8WsjvT_kY_rL2v@fedora>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 03:36:18 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Tonghao Zhang <tonghao@...aicloud.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Zengbing Tu <tuzengbing@...iglobal.com>,
Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next v8 3/3] net: bonding: send peer notify when failure
recovery
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 09:49:30PM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> +static void ad_cond_set_peer_notif(struct port *port)
> +{
> + struct bonding *bond = port->slave->bond;
> +
> + if (bond->params.broadcast_neighbor && rtnl_trylock()) {
Hi Tonghao,
When do our internal review, Antoine pointed that this rtnl_trylock() may
fail and cause the notify not send. The other places of bonding using
workqueues to reschedule when the rtnl_trylock() failed. Do you think
if we should also do some similar thing to avoid notify failed?
Thanks
Hangbin
> + bond->send_peer_notif = bond->params.num_peer_notif *
> + max(1, bond->params.peer_notif_delay);
> + rtnl_unlock();
> + }
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists