From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: bonding: propagation of offload settings Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:27:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20101124.122736.200378471.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20101030025435.GF12842@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, fubar@us.ibm.com To: horms@verge.net.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:51208 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756449Ab0KXU1L (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:27:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101030025435.GF12842@verge.net.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Simon Horman Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:54:35 +0900 > It seems to me that from a user point of view it may make more sense to: > > a) propagate settings from the master to the slaves and; > b) possibly disallow setting the slaves directly Yeah, good question. Propagation from master to slave(s) would have difficult semantics. If any of the slave changes fail (f.e. unsupported feature or memory allocation failure) we'd have to unwind all of the slaves which did accept the change without error. What if the unwind operation fails, due to lack of resources? A lot of state would thus need to be tracked to support this reasonably. However we pretty much have to respect whatever changes get made directly to the slaves, since the master must at all times claim support for only the lowest common denominator, feature wise, amongst that master's slaves.