From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH][Bonding]: keep slave state when admin down Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:22:11 -0400 Message-ID: <1153426931.5273.136.camel@jzny2> References: <1153401556.5098.43.camel@jzny2> <200607201850.k6KIo0hg016751@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx03.cybersurf.com ([209.197.145.106]:15328 "EHLO mx03.cybersurf.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964852AbWGTUWN (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:22:13 -0400 Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21]) by mx03.cybersurf.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1G3f2I-0001it-Gw for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:22:18 -0400 To: Jay Vosburgh In-Reply-To: <200607201850.k6KIo0hg016751@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-20-07 at 11:50 -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > > Do the initscript and sysconfig packages (/sbin/ifup, ifdown, > that stuff in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, etc) do the right thing > with this change? > I havent seen issues so far. > If memory serves, the initscripts will down the bond during > setup; I'm not sure if there is any dependency on that action releasing > all (possibly preexisting) slaves. > The one i have experimented with has no issues - but you may be right some people depend on this behavior at shutdown. > I don't have a big problem with this, but I'm a little concerned > that there may be dependencies on the existing behavior. I could add a module parameter that restores old behavior when asked to and we keep that for a while and have it print a warning message. The other alternative is just release it and see if someone complains. cheers, jamal