Re: [PATCH net 1/3] bonding:record primary when modify it via sysfs

["Nicolas de Pesloüan" <nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com>]

Le 11/06/2012 22:48, Jay Vosburgh a écrit :
> Nicolas de Pesloüan 	<nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Le 11/06/2012 11:00, Weiping Pan a écrit :
>>> If we modify primary via sysfs and it is not a valid slave,
>>> we should record it for future use, and this behavior is the same with
>>> bond_check_params().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Weiping Pan<wpan@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c |    8 ++++++--
>>>    1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>>> index aef42f0..485bedb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>>> @@ -1082,8 +1082,12 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(struct device *d,
>>>    		}
>>>    	}
>>>
>>> -	pr_info("%s: Unable to set %.*s as primary slave.\n",
>>> -		bond->dev->name, (int)strlen(buf) - 1, buf);
>>> +	strncpy(bond->params.primary, ifname, IFNAMSIZ);
>>> +	bond->params.primary[IFNAMSIZ - 1] = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	pr_info("%s: Recording %s as primary, "
>>> +		"but it has not been enslaved to %s yet.\n",
>>> +		bond->dev->name, ifname, bond->dev->name);
>>>    out:
>>>    	write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>>    	read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>>
>> I like this one, because it tend to relax the current constraints one
>> should respect on the order to write into sysfs to setup bonding.
>>
>> May I suggest we have a better info message, suggesting there might have a
>> typo on the name of the primary ?
>>
>>> +	pr_info("%s: Recording %s as primary, "
>>> +		"but it has not been enslaved to %s yet. Possible typo?\n",
>>> +		bond->dev->name, ifname, bond->dev->name);
>>
>> Except from this cosmetic,
>>
>> Acked-by: Nicolas de Pesloüan<nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr>
>
> 	Agreed, except that I can go either way on the "typo" warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh<fubar@us.ibm.com>

David,

I think this patch (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/164100/) was erroneously flagged as "Changes 
Requested". Despite my suggestion to add a "possible typo" warning, I acked the patch and so do Jay. 
We eventually decided not to add the "possible typo" warning, so the patch should be accepted.

Thanks,

	Nicolas.