* 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
[parent not found: <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991CE@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com>]
* 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).