From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net-next] bonding: don't allow the master to become its slave Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20120809.164331.1709422829981798177.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20120809195539.GB1783@minipsycho.orion> <1344546593.2593.24.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> <22811.1344547628@death.nxdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com, jpirko@redhat.com, fbl@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, andy@greyhouse.net, lchiquitto@suse.com To: fubar@us.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:33718 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759875Ab2HIXnc (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:43:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <22811.1344547628@death.nxdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jay Vosburgh Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:27:08 -0700 > If that's hard to do (and it might be; I'm not aware of a > standard way to run up and down those stacks of interfaces, which might > not always be vlans in the middle), there's still the priv_flags & > IFF_BONDING test that bonding could (and probably should) do itself as > well. The team driver could presumably have a similar test, although I > seem to recall that team was allowed to nest. > > FWIW, I've seen both the top and bottom halves of that picture > in use (i.e., bonds consisting of vlans as slaves or bonds with vlans > configured above them), but not combined as in your diagram. We're basically looking for cycles in a complex graph. Some combination of Jay and Ben's most recent patches, with some minor modifications, ought to do it.