From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4] bonding: allow arp_ip_targets on separate vlans to use arp validation Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:55:33 -0800 Message-ID: <13580.1262037333@death.nxdomain.ibm.com> References: <20091214204858.GP1639@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <20091225.182230.183058983.davem@davemloft.net> <20091228152632.GA6490@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <20091228.073308.112591206.davem@davemloft.net> Cc: andy@greyhouse.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:50371 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751654AbZL1Vzw (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:55:52 -0500 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nBSLn0ca013101 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:49:00 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nBSLtn4Y173942 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:55:49 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nBSLvjeA000628 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:57:46 -0700 In-reply-to: <20091228.073308.112591206.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: >From: Andy Gospodarek >Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:26:32 -0500 > >> This patch should be ready for inclusion. > >Yes, but I haven't seen ACK's from Jay or Eric. I was testing with the final patch just before my personal holiday adventures began, and was having one problem: the ARP monitor part worked fine on the VLAN (the slaves were up) but regular traffic on that same VLAN, e.g., ping, was dropped on receive at the bond. The peer (without bonding) saw the traffic, and responded, but it appeared that ARP replies from the peer (again, over the VLAN) weren't making it to the ARP table (at the bond end), so everything that depended on the ARP table wasn't working. I'm willing to believe this is a personal problem at my end, but I haven't determined the cause, and won't have the opportunity until next week (after my house has drained of relatives). If Andy isn't seeing the above misbehavior, I'm fine with assuming it's my problem and applying the patch; if I find something actually wrong with the patch next week we can address it then. Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com