Re: [PATCH net-next] Bonding: add per port priority support

[Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 09:55:45PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Add per port priority support for bonding. A higher number means higher
> >priority. The primary slave still has the highest priority. This option
> >also follows the primary_reselect rules.
> 
> 	The above description (and the Subject) should mention that this
> apparently refers to priority in interface selection during failover
> events.

OK, will update it. How about:

Bonding: add per port priority for current slave re-selection during failover

Add per port priority support for bonding current re-selection during failover.
A higher number means higher priority in selection. The primary slave still
has the highest priority. This option also follows the primary_reselect rules.

> >@@ -117,6 +121,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy bond_policy[IFLA_BOND_MAX + 1] = {
> > 
> > static const struct nla_policy bond_slave_policy[IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_MAX + 1] = {
> > 	[IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_QUEUE_ID]	= { .type = NLA_U16 },
> >+	[IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_PRIO]		= { .type = NLA_S32 },
> 
> 	Why used signed instead of unsigned?
> 
> 	Regardless, the valid range for the prio value should be
> documented.

I did this in purpose as team also use singed number. User could use a
negative number for a specific link while other links keep using default 0.

BTW, how to document the valid ranger for a int number, -2^31 ~ 2^31-1 or
INT_MIN ~ INT_MAX.

Thanks
Hangbin