From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: bonding... Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:52:37 +0100 Message-ID: <1299171157.2983.136.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <20110302.214910.112578818.davem@davemloft.net> <1299159991.4277.45.camel@localhost> <20110303083110.4e7f020c@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Ben Hutchings , David Miller , fubar@us.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:33403 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758207Ab1CCQwm (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:52:42 -0500 Received: by bwz15 with SMTP id 15so1322138bwz.19 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:52:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110303083110.4e7f020c@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le jeudi 03 mars 2011 =C3=A0 08:31 -0800, Stephen Hemminger a =C3=A9cri= t : > On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:46:31 +0000 > Ben Hutchings wrote: >=20 > > On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 21:49 -0800, David Miller wrote: > > [...] > > > This is unacceptable, people are submitting multiple bonding patc= hes > > > every single day now. It needs a clueful bonding person looking = at > > > these submissions on a constant basis. > > [...] > >=20 > > And preferably saying 'no' to most new features... >=20 > Agreed. It seems bonding has diverged from the standards and wants > to support every packet flow some user can think up. A simple setup that was working in 2.6.35 doesnt work anymore here vlan.103 - bond0 - eth3 (tg3 nic) With a bnx2 nic, it works Not sure its a bond problem, more probably a vlan one...