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

[Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 04:12:02PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 06:24:05PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 06:20:52PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > > 	Agreed, on both the comment and in regards to using the extant
> > > > bonding options management stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > >Also, in the Documentation it is mentioned that this parameter is only
> > > > >used in modes active-backup and balance-alb/tlb. Do we need to send an
> > > > >error message back preventing the modification of this value when not in
> > > > >these modes?
> > > > 
> > > > 	Using the option management stuff would get this for free.
> > > 
> > > Hi Jav, Jon,
> > > 
> > > I remembered the reason why I didn't use bond default option management.
> > > 
> > > It's because the bonding options management only take bond and values. We
> > > need to create an extra string to save the slave name and option values.
> > > Then in bond option setting function we extract the info from the string
> > > and do setting again, like the bond_option_queue_id_set().
> > > 
> > > I think this is too heavy for just an int value setting for slave.
> > > As we only support netlink for new options. There is no need to handle
> > > string setting via sysfs. For mode checking, we do just do like:
> > > 
> > > if (!bond_uses_primary(bond))
> > > 	return -EACCES;
> > > 
> > > So why bother the bonding options management? What do you think?
> > > Do you have a easier way to get the slave name in options management?
> > > If yes, I'm happy to use the default option management.
> > 
> > Hi Jay,
> > 
> > Any comments?
> > 
> 
> Hi Jay,
> 
> I'm still waiting for your comments before post v2 patch. Appreciate if you
> could have a better way about handling the slave name in options management.

Hi Jay, ping?