Re: [PATCH net 1/3] bonding:record primary when modify it via sysfs

[Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>]

Nicolas de Pesloüan 	<nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com> wrote:

>Le 11/06/2012 11:00, Weiping Pan a écrit :
>> If we modify primary via sysfs and it is not a valid slave,
>> we should record it for future use, and this behavior is the same with
>> bond_check_params().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Weiping Pan<wpan@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c |    8 ++++++--
>>   1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> index aef42f0..485bedb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> @@ -1082,8 +1082,12 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(struct device *d,
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>
>> -	pr_info("%s: Unable to set %.*s as primary slave.\n",
>> -		bond->dev->name, (int)strlen(buf) - 1, buf);
>> +	strncpy(bond->params.primary, ifname, IFNAMSIZ);
>> +	bond->params.primary[IFNAMSIZ - 1] = 0;
>> +
>> +	pr_info("%s: Recording %s as primary, "
>> +		"but it has not been enslaved to %s yet.\n",
>> +		bond->dev->name, ifname, bond->dev->name);
>>   out:
>>   	write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>>   	read_unlock(&bond->lock);
>
>I like this one, because it tend to relax the current constraints one
>should respect on the order to write into sysfs to setup bonding.
>
>May I suggest we have a better info message, suggesting there might have a
>typo on the name of the primary ?
>
>> +	pr_info("%s: Recording %s as primary, "
>> +		"but it has not been enslaved to %s yet. Possible typo?\n",
>> +		bond->dev->name, ifname, bond->dev->name);
>
>Except from this cosmetic,
>
>Acked-by: Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr>

	Agreed, except that I can go either way on the "typo" warning.

Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com