Re: [PATCH] net:bonding:support balance-alb with openvswitch

[Mat Kowalski <mko@redhat.com>]

On 28/07/2023 20:36, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 02:17:03PM +0200, Mat Kowalski wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the pointers, not much experienced with contributing here
>> so I really appreciate. Just a question inline regarding the net vs net-next
>>
>> On 28/07/2023 14:04, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> Hi Mat,
>>>
>>> + Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>
>>>     Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
>>>     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
>>>     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>>>     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
>>>     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
>>>     netdev@vger.kernel.org
>>>
>>>     As per the output of
>>>     ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --git-min-percent 25 this.patch
>>>     which is the preferred method to determine the CC list for
>>>     Networking patches. LKML can, in general, be excluded.
>>>
>>>> Commit d5410ac7b0ba ("net:bonding:support balance-alb interface with
>>>> vlan to bridge") introduced a support for balance-alb mode for
>>>> interfaces connected to the linux bridge by fixing missing matching of
>>>> MAC entry in FDB. In our testing we discovered that it still does not
>>>> work when the bond is connected to the OVS bridge as show in diagram
>>>> below:
>>>>
>>>> eth1(mac:eth1_mac)--bond0(balance-alb,mac:eth0_mac)--eth0(mac:eth0_mac)
>>>>                         |
>>>>                       bond0.150(mac:eth0_mac)
>>>>                                 |
>>>>                       ovs_bridge(ip:bridge_ip,mac:eth0_mac)
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes it by checking not only if the device is a bridge but
>>>> also if it is an openvswitch.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Kowalski <mko@redhat.com>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> unfortunately this does not seem to apply to net-next.
>>> Perhaps it needs to be rebased.
>>>
>>> Also.
>>>
>>> 1. For Networking patches, please include the target tree, in this case
>>>      net-next, as opposed to net, which is for fixes, in the subject.
>>>
>>> 	Subject: [PATCH net-next] ...
>> It makes me wonder as in my view this is a fix for something that doesn't
>> work today, not necessarily a new feature. Is net-next still a preferred
>> target?
> Hi Mat,
>
> Certainly there is a discussion to be had on if this is a fix or a feature.
>
> I would argue that it is a feature as it makes something new work
> that did not work before. As opposed to fixing something that worked
> incorrectly.
>
> But there is certainly room for interpretation.
>
Of course, I am not pushing any way as I am perfectly fine with getting 
it only into net-next. An updated patch has already been submitted with 
the tag in subject fixed. Thanks for your input !
>>> 2. Perhaps 'bonding; ' is a more appropriate prefix.
>>>
>>> 	Subject: [PATCH net-next] bonding: ...
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>