[PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Ding Tianhong]

If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.

Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index e06c445..de646e2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -2860,9 +2860,19 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
 		 */
 		break;
 	case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
-		/*
-		 * TODO: handle changing the primary's name
+		/* if the primary's name changed,
+		 * save the new name for primary.
 		 */
+		if (USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) &&
+		    bond->params.primary[0]) {
+			if (bond->primary_slave &&
+			    strcmp(bond->params.primary,
+				   bond->primary_slave->dev->name)) {
+				strncpy(bond->params.primary,
+					bond->primary_slave->dev->name,
+					IFNAMSIZ);
+			}
+		}
 		break;
 	case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
 		bond_compute_features(bond);
-- 
1.8.0

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Veaceslav Falico]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
>still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
>primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.

Nope, the bonding parameter, which is set by the user, shouldn't change
because of an interface name change.

>
>Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
>---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>index e06c445..de646e2 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>@@ -2860,9 +2860,19 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
> 		 */
> 		break;
> 	case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
>-		/*
>-		 * TODO: handle changing the primary's name
>+		/* if the primary's name changed,
>+		 * save the new name for primary.
> 		 */
>+		if (USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) &&
>+		    bond->params.primary[0]) {
>+			if (bond->primary_slave &&
>+			    strcmp(bond->params.primary,
>+				   bond->primary_slave->dev->name)) {
>+				strncpy(bond->params.primary,
>+					bond->primary_slave->dev->name,
>+					IFNAMSIZ);
>+			}
>+		}
> 		break;
> 	case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
> 		bond_compute_features(bond);
>-- 
>1.8.0
>
>

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Ding Tianhong]

On 2014/1/9 19:46, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
>> still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
>> primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.
> 
> Nope, the bonding parameter, which is set by the user, shouldn't change
> because of an interface name change.
> 
Yes, I know what you mean, but it is not bug fix, just make it more better,
do not you feel it strange that the primary was different with primary_slave's name?

Regards
Ding


>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index e06c445..de646e2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -2860,9 +2860,19 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
>>          */
>>         break;
>>     case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
>> -        /*
>> -         * TODO: handle changing the primary's name
>> +        /* if the primary's name changed,
>> +         * save the new name for primary.
>>          */
>> +        if (USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) &&
>> +            bond->params.primary[0]) {
>> +            if (bond->primary_slave &&
>> +                strcmp(bond->params.primary,
>> +                   bond->primary_slave->dev->name)) {
>> +                strncpy(bond->params.primary,
>> +                    bond->primary_slave->dev->name,
>> +                    IFNAMSIZ);
>> +            }
>> +        }
>>         break;
>>     case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
>>         bond_compute_features(bond);
>> -- 
>> 1.8.0
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Veaceslav Falico]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:23:58PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>On 2014/1/9 19:46, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>> If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
>>> still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
>>> primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.
>>
>> Nope, the bonding parameter, which is set by the user, shouldn't change
>> because of an interface name change.
>>
>Yes, I know what you mean, but it is not bug fix, just make it more better,
>do not you feel it strange that the primary was different with primary_slave's name?

Yep, that's an issue - that's why there is the TODO. We shouldn't, though,
change the primary param, but rather check if the slave (that changed name)
is (already not) eligible for primary_slave.

>
>Regards
>Ding
>
>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> index e06c445..de646e2 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> @@ -2860,9 +2860,19 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
>>>          */
>>>         break;
>>>     case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
>>> -        /*
>>> -         * TODO: handle changing the primary's name
>>> +        /* if the primary's name changed,
>>> +         * save the new name for primary.
>>>          */
>>> +        if (USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) &&
>>> +            bond->params.primary[0]) {
>>> +            if (bond->primary_slave &&
>>> +                strcmp(bond->params.primary,
>>> +                   bond->primary_slave->dev->name)) {
>>> +                strncpy(bond->params.primary,
>>> +                    bond->primary_slave->dev->name,
>>> +                    IFNAMSIZ);
>>> +            }
>>> +        }
>>>         break;
>>>     case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
>>>         bond_compute_features(bond);
>>> --
>>> 1.8.0
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Ding Tianhong]

On 2014/1/9 20:30, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:23:58PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> On 2014/1/9 19:46, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>> If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
>>>> still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
>>>> primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.
>>>
>>> Nope, the bonding parameter, which is set by the user, shouldn't change
>>> because of an interface name change.
>>>
>> Yes, I know what you mean, but it is not bug fix, just make it more better,
>> do not you feel it strange that the primary was different with primary_slave's name?
> 
> Yep, that's an issue - that's why there is the TODO. We shouldn't, though,
> change the primary param, but rather check if the slave (that changed name)
> is (already not) eligible for primary_slave.
> 

Ok，So，summarize your and my opinion, I think there are two ways to fix this:

1. just like my patch said.
2. check if the primary is not the primary_slave, make the primary_slave = NULL, this means
   the primary_slave is no valid.
3. ?? did you have any better ideas?

Regards
Ding 

>>
>> Regards
>> Ding
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> index e06c445..de646e2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>> @@ -2860,9 +2860,19 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
>>>>          */
>>>>         break;
>>>>     case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
>>>> -        /*
>>>> -         * TODO: handle changing the primary's name
>>>> +        /* if the primary's name changed,
>>>> +         * save the new name for primary.
>>>>          */
>>>> +        if (USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) &&
>>>> +            bond->params.primary[0]) {
>>>> +            if (bond->primary_slave &&
>>>> +                strcmp(bond->params.primary,
>>>> +                   bond->primary_slave->dev->name)) {
>>>> +                strncpy(bond->params.primary,
>>>> +                    bond->primary_slave->dev->name,
>>>> +                    IFNAMSIZ);
>>>> +            }
>>>> +        }
>>>>         break;
>>>>     case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
>>>>         bond_compute_features(bond);
>>>> -- 
>>>> 1.8.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Veaceslav Falico]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:20:45PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>On 2014/1/9 20:30, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:23:58PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>> On 2014/1/9 19:46, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>>> If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
>>>>> still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
>>>>> primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the bonding parameter, which is set by the user, shouldn't change
>>>> because of an interface name change.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I know what you mean, but it is not bug fix, just make it more better,
>>> do not you feel it strange that the primary was different with primary_slave's name?
>>
>> Yep, that's an issue - that's why there is the TODO. We shouldn't, though,
>> change the primary param, but rather check if the slave (that changed name)
>> is (already not) eligible for primary_slave.
>>
>
>Ok，So，summarize your and my opinion, I think there are two ways to fix this:
>
>1. just like my patch said.

No, the primary string is user-set, and it should *not* be changed by
kernel.

>2. check if the primary is not the primary_slave, make the primary_slave = NULL, this means
>   the primary_slave is no valid.

Check the slave that changed name - if it's the primary slave, remove it,
and see if we need to select the new active slave. If it's not the primray
slave, and we don't have one - select it as a new primary and, again, see
if we need to select a new active slave.

>3. ?? did you have any better ideas?
>
>Regards
>Ding
>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ding
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>>> index e06c445..de646e2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>>>> @@ -2860,9 +2860,19 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
>>>>>          */
>>>>>         break;
>>>>>     case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
>>>>> -        /*
>>>>> -         * TODO: handle changing the primary's name
>>>>> +        /* if the primary's name changed,
>>>>> +         * save the new name for primary.
>>>>>          */
>>>>> +        if (USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) &&
>>>>> +            bond->params.primary[0]) {
>>>>> +            if (bond->primary_slave &&
>>>>> +                strcmp(bond->params.primary,
>>>>> +                   bond->primary_slave->dev->name)) {
>>>>> +                strncpy(bond->params.primary,
>>>>> +                    bond->primary_slave->dev->name,
>>>>> +                    IFNAMSIZ);
>>>>> +            }
>>>>> +        }
>>>>>         break;
>>>>>     case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
>>>>>         bond_compute_features(bond);
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.8.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Ding Tianhong]

On 2014/1/10 15:44, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:20:45PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> On 2014/1/9 20:30, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:23:58PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>> On 2014/1/9 19:46, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:20:36PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>>>> If the primary_slave's name changed, but the bond->prams.primay was
>>>>>> still using the old name, it is conflict with the meaning of the
>>>>>> primary, so update the primary when the slave change its name.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the bonding parameter, which is set by the user, shouldn't change
>>>>> because of an interface name change.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know what you mean, but it is not bug fix, just make it more better,
>>>> do not you feel it strange that the primary was different with primary_slave's name?
>>>
>>> Yep, that's an issue - that's why there is the TODO. We shouldn't, though,
>>> change the primary param, but rather check if the slave (that changed name)
>>> is (already not) eligible for primary_slave.
>>>
>>
>> Ok，So，summarize your and my opinion, I think there are two ways to fix this:
>>
>> 1. just like my patch said.
> 
> No, the primary string is user-set, and it should *not* be changed by
> kernel.
> 
>> 2. check if the primary is not the primary_slave, make the primary_slave = NULL, this means
>>   the primary_slave is no valid.
> 
> Check the slave that changed name - if it's the primary slave, remove it,
> and see if we need to select the new active slave. 

Ok, agree.

> If it's not the primray
> slave, and we don't have one - select it as a new primary and, again, see
> if we need to select a new active slave.

I don't think so , I think if it is not the primary slave and we don't have one,
no need to do anything, just a normal slave change its name.

Regards
Ding

> 
>> 3. ?? did you have any better ideas?
>>
>> Regards
>> Ding
>>

>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Veaceslav Falico]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 07:05:34PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>On 2014/1/10 15:44, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>> If it's not the primray
>> slave, and we don't have one - select it as a new primary and, again, see
>> if we need to select a new active slave.
>
>I don't think so , I think if it is not the primary slave and we don't have one,
>no need to do anything, just a normal slave change its name.

If primary == "my_eth0", you have 2 slaves - "eth0" and "eth1", thus null
primary_slave, and rename eth0 to my_eth0 - then you need to set
primary_slave to my_eth0.

If primary == "my_eth0", you have 2 slaves - "my_eth0" and "eth1", thus
primary_slave == dev with name "my_eth0", and rename "my_eth0" to "eth0" -
then you must set primary_slave to NULL.

And after either of these you must see if you need to re-select the active
slave, as it might have been forced by the primary_slave, which has been
modified.

You might also want to add some pr_info() about adding/removing
primary_slave, as the user to be aware.

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: update the primary when slave name changed

[Ding Tianhong]

On 2014/1/10 19:11, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 07:05:34PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> On 2014/1/10 15:44, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
>>> If it's not the primray
>>> slave, and we don't have one - select it as a new primary and, again, see
>>> if we need to select a new active slave.
>>
>> I don't think so , I think if it is not the primary slave and we don't have one,
>> no need to do anything, just a normal slave change its name.
> 
> If primary == "my_eth0", you have 2 slaves - "eth0" and "eth1", thus null
> primary_slave, and rename eth0 to my_eth0 - then you need to set
> primary_slave to my_eth0.
> 
> If primary == "my_eth0", you have 2 slaves - "my_eth0" and "eth1", thus
> primary_slave == dev with name "my_eth0", and rename "my_eth0" to "eth0" -
> then you must set primary_slave to NULL.
> 
> And after either of these you must see if you need to re-select the active
> slave, as it might have been forced by the primary_slave, which has been
> modified.
> 
> You might also want to add some pr_info() about adding/removing
> primary_slave, as the user to be aware.
> 

Ok thanks.

Regards
Ding

>