Re: [PATCH] bonding: documentation and code cleanup for resend_igmp

[Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>]

> > 
> > Grammar nit - "prevents the ICMP membership report from being issued in
> > response to the failover event."  Or "prevents issuing of the IGMP
> > membership report in response to a failover event."
> 
> I like the first suggestion. I'll update the patch fixing the ICMP
> typo.

Petards, petards, everywhere - and why are they all pointing at me :)

> 
> >> +
> >> +	This option is useful for bonding modes balance-rr or 0,
> >> +	active-backup or 1, balance-tlb or 5, balance-alb or 6, which a
> >> +	failover can move the IGMP traffic from one slave to another.
> >> +	Therefore, the switch must be notified with an extra IGMP report
> >> +	to start forwarding the IGMP traffic over the new selected slave.
> > 
> > More nits.  How about (with some added guesses on my part about
> > direction)
> > 
> > This option is useful for bonding modes balance-rr (0), active-backup
> > (1), balance-tlb (5) and balance-alb (6), in which a failover can switch
> > the outgoing IGMP traffic from one slave to another.  Therefore a fresh
> > IGMP report must be issued to cause the switch to forward the incoming
> > IGMP traffic over the newly selected slave.
> 
> It's also better. thanks. However, the failover can switch both
> incoming and outgoing IGMP traffic so I'd leave it generic as before.
> For instance:
> 
> This option is useful for bonding modes balance-rr (0), active-backup
> (1), balance-tlb (5) and balance-alb (6), in which a failover can switch
> the IGMP traffic from one slave to another.  Therefore a fresh IGMP
> report must be issued to cause the switch to forward the incoming
> IGMP traffic over the newly selected slave.
> 
> What do you think?

I'm find with leaving it generic.

rick jones