From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: fcoe: correct checking for bonding Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20110314192201.GA2873@psychotron.redhat.com> References: <20110302095550.GA2858@psychotron.brq.redhat.com> <1299114558.1688.5.camel@fritz> <20110312120109.GA2899@psychotron.redhat.com> <20110312.105944.193725929.davem@davemloft.net> <1300129447.19083.258.camel@fritz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , "James.Bottomley@suse.de" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@open-fcoe.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "fubar@us.ibm.com" , "joe.eykholt@gmail.com" To: Robert Love Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3931 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755286Ab1CNTWM (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:22:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1300129447.19083.258.camel@fritz> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 >> 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 >> >>> >--- >> >>> > 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 :( > > Ultimately I just want things to go smoothly, so I'll leave it up to >James and you to figure out what to do. > >Thanks, //Rob >