* major bonding bug?
[not found] <E791C176A6139242A988ABA8B3D9B38A014C965E@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>
@ 2003-12-30 16:31 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2003-12-30 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hen, Shmulik; +Cc: Noam, Amir, Marom, Noam, netdev, fubar
hmmm...
It looks like a lot of code now depends on global variable "bond_mode".
This looks very wrong... bonding mode should be per-interface, not
global to the entire driver. What happens when a user wants
BOND_MODE_ROUNDROBIN on bond0, and BOND_MODE_TLB on bond1?
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: major bonding bug?
[not found] <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991CE@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>
@ 2003-12-30 16:45 ` Amir Noam
2003-12-31 0:03 ` Jay Vosburgh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Amir Noam @ 2003-12-30 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik, Hen, Shmulik; +Cc: Marom, Noam, netdev, fubar
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 06:31 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> hmmm...
>
>
> It looks like a lot of code now depends on global variable
> "bond_mode".
Actually, this has always been the case in the bonding module.
> This looks very wrong... bonding mode should be per-interface, not
> global to the entire driver. What happens when a user wants
> BOND_MODE_ROUNDROBIN on bond0, and BOND_MODE_TLB on bond1?
We agree that it looks very wrong, and this is in fact one of the
features we've been working on lately. It is not a trivial fix,
since, as you've noted, a lot of the code depends on the bond
settings being global. We plan to start releasing patches to address
this issue very soon (probably even starting tomorrow).
--
Amir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: major bonding bug?
2003-12-30 16:45 ` Amir Noam
@ 2003-12-31 0:03 ` Jay Vosburgh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jay Vosburgh @ 2003-12-31 0:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Amir Noam; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Hen, Shmulik, Marom, Noam, netdev
>> This looks very wrong... bonding mode should be per-interface, not
>> global to the entire driver. What happens when a user wants
>> BOND_MODE_ROUNDROBIN on bond0, and BOND_MODE_TLB on bond1?
>
>We agree that it looks very wrong, and this is in fact one of the
>features we've been working on lately. It is not a trivial fix,
>since, as you've noted, a lot of the code depends on the bond
>settings being global. We plan to start releasing patches to address
>this issue very soon (probably even starting tomorrow).
FWIW, the workaround is to load the bonding module multiple
times (once for each desired mode).
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-31 0:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <E791C176A6139242A988ABA8B3D9B38A014C965E@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>
2003-12-30 16:31 ` major bonding bug? Jeff Garzik
[not found] <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991CE@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>
2003-12-30 16:45 ` Amir Noam
2003-12-31 0:03 ` Jay Vosburgh
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).