From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florin Malita Subject: Re: [PATCH] channel bonding: add support for device-indexed parameters Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:16:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20050922091608.5ec2724c.fmalita@gmail.com> References: <20050922000444.369c32c2.fmalita@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@osdl.org, davem@davemloft.net, ctindel@users.sourceforge.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: To: "Jason R. Martin" In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:03:53 -0700 "Jason R. Martin" wrote: > Personally I think working to get the sysfs support finished in > bonding and stop relying on module parameters to configure bonds would > be better, since bonds will truly be independent of each other and be > able to be added and removed on the fly. Having worked with a > previous attempt to set per-bond values through module parameters > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=110558187800001&r=1&w=2), it's easy > to get pretty crazy. Agreed - that would be a better configuration interface, but I don't see why we couldn't support module parameter arrays too. Especially since the changes are minimal and don't break the ABI/ifenslave compatibility/etc. IMHO the "primary" semantics are completely broken right now and this is a possible fix for it. > For example, you can have more than one > arp_ip_target, and they really should be per bond as well, so how do > you divvy those up via module parameters? Yup, arp_ip_target is one parameter which doesn't lend itself to this scheme and this is exactly why the patch doesn't try to fix it. Florin