From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 3/3] bonding,ipv4,ipv6,vlan: Handle NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER like NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: <1303225019.2988.3.camel@bwh-desktop> References: <1302911271.2845.41.camel@bwh-desktop> <22334.1302913805@death> <1303153792.2857.32.camel@bwh-desktop> <4DACE638.9060909@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jay Vosburgh , David Miller , Andy Gospodarek , Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Brian Haley Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:10039 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751912Ab1DSO5E (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:57:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DACE638.9060909@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 21:32 -0400, Brian Haley wrote: > On 04/18/2011 03:09 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > How about restoring the parameters like this: > > > > --- > > From: Ben Hutchings > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:36:48 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH net-next-2.6] ipv4,ipv6,bonding: Restore control over number of peer notifications > > > > For backward compatibility, we should retain the module parameters and > > sysfs attributes to control the number of peer notifications > > (gratuitous ARPs and unsolicited NAs) sent after bonding failover. > > Also, it is possible for failover to take place even though the new > > active slave does not have link up, and in that case the peer > > notification should be deferred until it does. > > > > Change ipv4 and ipv6 so they do not automatically send peer > > notifications on bonding failover. Change the bonding driver to send > > separate NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS notifications when the link is up, as > > many times as requested. Since it does not directly control which > > protocols send notifications, make num_grat_arp and num_unsol_na > > aliases for a single parameter. > > Hi Ben, > > I think this looks good, I'll try and get this tested here when I have > a chance, but for now I can: > > Acked-by: Brian Haley > > Should we just go ahead and make a new parameter for peer notification? > Compiled but untested patch below. [...] If everyone is in agreement to deprecate the old parameters in favour of a single parameter (or none) I think there should be a target date for removal, documented in Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.