From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veaceslav Falico Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next] bonding: handle slave's name change with primary_slave logic Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 02:40:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20140116014023.GB27182@redhat.com> References: <1389834269-4740-1-git-send-email-vfalico@redhat.com> <52D7382A.1090607@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh , Andy Gospodarek To: Ding Tianhong Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24465 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751214AbaAPBnY (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:43:24 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D7382A.1090607@huawei.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:38:50AM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >On 2014/1/16 9:04, Veaceslav Falico wrote: >> Currently, if a slave's name change, we just pass it by. However, if the >> slave is a current primary_slave, then we end up with using a slave, whose >> name != params.primary, for primary_slave. And vice-versa, if we don't have >> a primary_slave but have params.primary set - we will not detected a new >> primary_slave. >> >> Fix this by catching the NETDEV_CHANGENAME event and setting primary_slave >> accordingly. Also, if the primary_slave was changed, issue a reselection of >> the active slave, cause the priorities have changed. >> >> Reported-by: Ding Tianhong >> CC: Ding Tianhong >> CC: Jay Vosburgh >> CC: Andy Gospodarek >> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico >> --- >> >> Notes: >> v3->v4: >> Fix style issue. >> >> v2->v3: >> Reword the info message, per Jay's comment. >> >> v1->v2: >> Proper patch >> >> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c >> index f2fe6cb..f00dd45 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c >> @@ -2860,9 +2860,27 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event, >> */ >> break; >> case NETDEV_CHANGENAME: >> - /* >> - * TODO: handle changing the primary's name >> - */ >> + /* we don't care if we don't have primary set */ >> + if (!USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) || >> + !bond->params.primary[0]) >> + break; >> + >> + if (slave == bond->primary_slave) { >> + /* slave's name changed - he's no longer primary */ >> + bond->primary_slave = NULL; >> + } else if (!strcmp(slave_dev->name, bond->params.primary)) { >> + /* we have a new primary slave */ >> + bond->primary_slave = slave; >> + } else { /* we didn't change primary - exit */ >> + break; >> + } >> + >why not remove all the { } for the if else, there are only one line for each if. It's written so in CodingStyles, as spotted by Sergei - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg266612.html . > >but seems good for logic. > >Acked-by: Ding Tianhong > >> + pr_info("%s: Primary slave changed to %s, reselecting active slave.\n", >> + bond->dev->name, bond->primary_slave ? slave_dev->name : >> + "none"); >> + write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock); >> + bond_select_active_slave(bond); >> + write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock); >> break; >> case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE: >> bond_compute_features(bond); >> > >