Re: fcoe: correct checking for bonding

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:22:02 +0100

> Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 08:04:07PM CET, robert.w.love@intel.com wrote:
>>On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 10:59 -0800, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:01:10 +0100
>>> 
>>> > Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:09:18AM CET, robert.w.love@intel.com wrote:
>>> >>On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:55 -0800, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> >>> Or perhaps this should be applied to net-next?
>>> >>> 
>>> >>I think this should go through scsi-misc as all the other
>>> >>libfc/libfcoe/fcoe patches do.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:05:35AM CET, jpirko@redhat.com wrote:
>>> >>> >Check for bonding master and refuse to use that.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
>>> >>> >---
>>> >>> > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c |    4 +---
>>> >>> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>>> >>> >index 9f9600b..3becc6a 100644
>>> >>> >--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>>> >>> >+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>>> >>> >@@ -285,9 +285,7 @@ static int fcoe_interface_setup(struct fcoe_interface *fcoe,
>>> >>> > 	}
>>> >>> > 
>>> >>> > 	/* Do not support for bonding device */
>>> >>> >-	if ((netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_ALB) ||
>>> >>> >-	    (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE) ||
>>> >>> >-	    (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_8023AD)) {
>>> >>> >+	if (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING && netdev->flags & IFF_MASTER) {
>>> >>> > 		FCOE_NETDEV_DBG(netdev, "Bonded interfaces not supported\n");
>>> >>> > 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> >>> > 	}
>>> >>> >-- 
>>> >>> >1.7.3.4
>>> >>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>James, feel free to pick up this patch. I don't have anything in my fcoe
>>> >>tree right now that it would conflict with. I'll also put it in my tree
>>> >>and resend if you don't put it into scsi-misc directly.
>>> > 
>>> > What's the status of this? Maybe this should rather go thru net-next
>>> 
>>> Sure, I can take this.  I'll look at it later.
>>
>>Hi Dave,
>>
>>   I'd rather have this patch go through scsi-misc. Most, if not all,
>>libfc, libfcoe and fcoe patches have taken this path. The way it has
>>been working is that I have been collecting fcoe patches and re-posting
>>them to scsi-misc after I have reviewed them and done some basic
>>testing.
>>
>>   Taking a patch like this through net{-next} could cause a merge
>>problem at Linus' level if a later patch makes it though the normal
>>process and conflicts. This is what I want to avoid.
>>
>>   This patch, although appreciated, isn't critical. I have collected it
>>into my tree and will re-post it to scsi-misc. I see no reason to treat
>>this patch differently from other patches.
> 
> Well I have another set of patches dependent on this one :(

True, also I think Rob is overreacting.

Any merge problems created will be handled properly by Linus.

I recently changed the interface to ipv4 and ipv6 route lookups, and
this required all kinds of changes to stuff under Infiniband and elsewhere.
It's the only sane way to handle this kind of thing.