[PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[Mahesh Bandewar]

From: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@google.com>

Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.

(a) First two patches are basically to move the work-queue initialization
    from every ndo_open / bond_open operation to once at the beginning while
    port creation. Work-queue initialization is an unnecessary operation
    for every 'ifup' operation. However we have some mode-specific work-queues
    and mode can change anytime after port creation. So the second patch is
    to ensure the correct work-handler is called based on the mode.

(b) Third patch is simple and straightforward that removes hard-coded value
    that was added into the initial commit and replaces it with the default
    value configured.

(c) The final patch in the series removes the unimplemented "port-moved" state
    from the LACP state machine. This state is defined but never set so
    removing from the state machine logic makes code little cleaner.

Note: None of these patches are making any functional changes.

Mahesh Bandewar (4):
  bonding: restructure arp-monitor
  bonding: initialize work-queues during creation of bond
  bonding: remove hardcoded value
  bonding: remove "port-moved" state that was never implemented

 drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c  | 11 +++--------
 drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

-- 
2.11.0.483.g087da7b7c-goog

Re: [PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[David Miller]

From: Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:08:16 -0800

> Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.

The net-next tree is closed, therefore it is not appropriate to
submit cleanups at this time.

Please wait until after the merge window and the net-next tree
opens back up.

Thank you.

Re: [PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[Or Gerlitz]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:29 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:08:16 -0800
>
>> Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.
>
> The net-next tree is closed, therefore it is not appropriate to
> submit cleanups at this time.
>
> Please wait until after the merge window and the net-next tree
> opens back up.

Maybe we should start educating ppl on this by mandating them to come
and bring home made cakes to netdev each time they ignore that? in our
school this is the model for stopping kids and teachers phones to ring
during class time. Jamal - there will be more attendees this way :)

Or.

Re: [PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:29 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:08:16 -0800
> >
> >> Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.
> >
> > The net-next tree is closed, therefore it is not appropriate to
> > submit cleanups at this time.
> >
Oops, My bad! Well, this will give an opportunity for people to have
more time with the patch(s) / clean-up-code :p

> > Please wait until after the merge window and the net-next tree
> > opens back up.
> >
Will do so. Thank you.
>
> Maybe we should start educating ppl on this by mandating them to come
> and bring home made cakes to netdev each time they ignore that?
>
That's a risky proposal Or! You are assuming that someone who can
write code can bake "good" cake too :)

> in our
> school this is the model for stopping kids and teachers phones to ring
> during class time. Jamal - there will be more attendees this way :)
>

> Or.

Re: [PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[Andy Gospodarek]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)
<maheshb@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:29 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>> > From: Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@bandewar.net>
>> > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:08:16 -0800
>> >
>> >> Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.
>> >
>> > The net-next tree is closed, therefore it is not appropriate to
>> > submit cleanups at this time.
>> >
> Oops, My bad! Well, this will give an opportunity for people to have
> more time with the patch(s) / clean-up-code :p
>
>> > Please wait until after the merge window and the net-next tree
>> > opens back up.
>> >
> Will do so. Thank you.
>>
>> Maybe we should start educating ppl on this by mandating them to come
>> and bring home made cakes to netdev each time they ignore that?
>>
> That's a risky proposal Or! You are assuming that someone who can
> write code can bake "good" cake too :)

Just bring the recipe, so if it happens not to be tasty we can tell
you why.  :-D

>> in our
>> school this is the model for stopping kids and teachers phones to ring
>> during class time. Jamal - there will be more attendees this way :)
>>
>
>> Or.

Re: [PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[Jiri Pirko]

Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:08:16AM CET, mahesh@bandewar.net wrote:
>From: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@google.com>
>
>Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.
>
>(a) First two patches are basically to move the work-queue initialization
>    from every ndo_open / bond_open operation to once at the beginning while
>    port creation. Work-queue initialization is an unnecessary operation
>    for every 'ifup' operation. However we have some mode-specific work-queues
>    and mode can change anytime after port creation. So the second patch is
>    to ensure the correct work-handler is called based on the mode.
>
>(b) Third patch is simple and straightforward that removes hard-coded value
>    that was added into the initial commit and replaces it with the default
>    value configured.
>
>(c) The final patch in the series removes the unimplemented "port-moved" state
>    from the LACP state machine. This state is defined but never set so
>    removing from the state machine logic makes code little cleaner.
>
>Note: None of these patches are making any functional changes.
>
>Mahesh Bandewar (4):

Mahesh. I understand that you are still using bonding. What's stopping
you from using team instead?

Isn't about the time to start deprecate process of bonding? :O


>  bonding: restructure arp-monitor
>  bonding: initialize work-queues during creation of bond
>  bonding: remove hardcoded value
>  bonding: remove "port-moved" state that was never implemented
>
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c  | 11 +++--------
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
>-- 
>2.11.0.483.g087da7b7c-goog
>

Re: [PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
> Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:08:16AM CET, mahesh@bandewar.net wrote:
>>From: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@google.com>
>>
>>Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.
>>
>>(a) First two patches are basically to move the work-queue initialization
>>    from every ndo_open / bond_open operation to once at the beginning while
>>    port creation. Work-queue initialization is an unnecessary operation
>>    for every 'ifup' operation. However we have some mode-specific work-queues
>>    and mode can change anytime after port creation. So the second patch is
>>    to ensure the correct work-handler is called based on the mode.
>>
>>(b) Third patch is simple and straightforward that removes hard-coded value
>>    that was added into the initial commit and replaces it with the default
>>    value configured.
>>
>>(c) The final patch in the series removes the unimplemented "port-moved" state
>>    from the LACP state machine. This state is defined but never set so
>>    removing from the state machine logic makes code little cleaner.
>>
>>Note: None of these patches are making any functional changes.
>>
>>Mahesh Bandewar (4):
>
> Mahesh. I understand that you are still using bonding. What's stopping
> you from using team instead?
>
Let me just say this, if it was trivial enough, we'd have done with it
by now. :)

> Isn't about the time to start deprecate process of bonding? :O
>
>
>>  bonding: restructure arp-monitor
>>  bonding: initialize work-queues during creation of bond
>>  bonding: remove hardcoded value
>>  bonding: remove "port-moved" state that was never implemented
>>
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c  | 11 +++--------
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>>--
>>2.11.0.483.g087da7b7c-goog
>>

Re: [PATCH next 0/4] bonding: winter cleanup

[Jiri Pirko]

Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:23:13PM CET, maheshb@google.com wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:08:16AM CET, mahesh@bandewar.net wrote:
>>>From: Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@google.com>
>>>
>>>Few cleanup patches that I have accumulated over some time now.
>>>
>>>(a) First two patches are basically to move the work-queue initialization
>>>    from every ndo_open / bond_open operation to once at the beginning while
>>>    port creation. Work-queue initialization is an unnecessary operation
>>>    for every 'ifup' operation. However we have some mode-specific work-queues
>>>    and mode can change anytime after port creation. So the second patch is
>>>    to ensure the correct work-handler is called based on the mode.
>>>
>>>(b) Third patch is simple and straightforward that removes hard-coded value
>>>    that was added into the initial commit and replaces it with the default
>>>    value configured.
>>>
>>>(c) The final patch in the series removes the unimplemented "port-moved" state
>>>    from the LACP state machine. This state is defined but never set so
>>>    removing from the state machine logic makes code little cleaner.
>>>
>>>Note: None of these patches are making any functional changes.
>>>
>>>Mahesh Bandewar (4):
>>
>> Mahesh. I understand that you are still using bonding. What's stopping
>> you from using team instead?
>>
>Let me just say this, if it was trivial enough, we'd have done with it
>by now. :)

What exactly is the blocker? Can I help?