Re: [PATCH net v8 4/6] bonding: 3ad: fix carrier when no usable slaves

[Jay Vosburgh <jv@jvosburgh.net>]

Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:

>On 6/9/26 9:56 AM, Louis Scalbert wrote:
>> Le lun. 8 juin 2026 à 23:37, Jay Vosburgh <jv@jvosburgh.net> a écrit :
>>>> @@ -1179,10 +1194,10 @@ static void ad_mux_machine(struct port *port, bool *update_slave_arr)
>>>>               switch (port->sm_mux_state) {
>>>>               case AD_MUX_DETACHED:
>>>>                       port->actor_oper_port_state &= ~LACP_STATE_SYNCHRONIZATION;
>>>> -                      ad_disable_collecting_distributing(port,
>>>> -                                                         update_slave_arr);
>>>>                       port->actor_oper_port_state &= ~LACP_STATE_COLLECTING;
>>>>                       port->actor_oper_port_state &= ~LACP_STATE_DISTRIBUTING;
>>>> +                      ad_disable_collecting_distributing(port,
>>>> +                                                         update_slave_arr);
>>>
>>>         Is there a functional reason to move this?  I don't see anything
>>> obvious in ad_disable_collecting_distributing() that depends on the
>>> actor_oper_port_state.  Since you want this to be backported via stable,
>>> fewer actual changes reduce the chances of an issue applying the patch
>>> to an older version.
>> 
>> The path is ad_disable_collecting_distributing() ->
>> bond_3ad_set_carrier() -> __agg_usable_ports(). __agg_usable_ports()
>> reads port->actor_oper_port_state
>> 
>> It was found by
>> https://sashiko.dev/#/message/20260526084048.1696544-5-louis.scalbert%406wind.com
>
>@Jay: it's not clear to me if you are ok with the series in the current
>shape, could you please clarify?

	This was the last question I had; everything in this version
seems reasonable.

	For the series:

Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <jv@jvosburgh.net>

	-J


>Thanks,
>
>Paolo
>

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jv@jvosburgh.net