Re: fcoe: correct checking for bonding

Jiri Pirko
2011-03-14T19:22:02Z

Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 08:04:07PM CET, robert.w.love@intel.com wrote:
>On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 10:59 -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
>> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:01:10 +0100
>>
>> > Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:09:18AM CET, robert.w.love@intel.com wrote:
>> >>On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:55 -0800, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >>> Or perhaps this should be applied to net-next?
>> >>>
>> >>I think this should go through scsi-misc as all the other
>> >>libfc/libfcoe/fcoe patches do.
>> >>
>> >>> Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:05:35AM CET, jpirko@redhat.com wrote:
>> >>> >Check for bonding master and refuse to use that.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
>> >>> >---
>> >>> > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 4 +---
>> >>> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >>> >
>> >>> >diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>> >>> >index 9f9600b..3becc6a 100644
>> >>> >--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>> >>> >+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>> >>> >@@ -285,9 +285,7 @@ static int fcoe_interface_setup(struct fcoe_interface *fcoe,
>> >>> > }
>> >>> >
>> >>> > /* Do not support for bonding device */
>> >>> >- if ((netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_ALB) ||
>> >>> >- (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE) ||
>> >>> >- (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_8023AD)) {
>> >>> >+ if (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING && netdev->flags & IFF_MASTER) {
>> >>> > FCOE_NETDEV_DBG(netdev, "Bonded interfaces not supported\n");
>> >>> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> >>> > }
>> >>> >--
>> >>> >1.7.3.4
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >>James, feel free to pick up this patch. I don't have anything in my fcoe
>> >>tree right now that it would conflict with. I'll also put it in my tree
>> >>and resend if you don't put it into scsi-misc directly.
>> >
>> > What's the status of this? Maybe this should rather go thru net-next
>>
>> Sure, I can take this. I'll look at it later.
>
>Hi Dave,
>
> I'd rather have this patch go through scsi-misc. Most, if not all,
>libfc, libfcoe and fcoe patches have taken this path. The way it has
>been working is that I have been collecting fcoe patches and re-posting
>them to scsi-misc after I have reviewed them and done some basic
>testing.
>
> Taking a patch like this through net{-next} could cause a merge
>problem at Linus' level if a later patch makes it though the normal
>process and conflicts. This is what I want to avoid.
>
> This patch, although appreciated, isn't critical. I have collected it
>into my tree and will re-post it to scsi-misc. I see no reason to treat
>this patch differently from other patches.

Well I have another set of patches dependent on this one :(
>
> Ultimately I just want things to go smoothly, so I'll leave it up to
>James and you to figure out what to do.
>
>Thanks, //Rob
>