From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] bonding:check mode when modify primary_reselect Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:28:14 -0700 Message-ID: <32303.1339450094@death.nxdomain> References: <5cef8fed5c7fbb9e7f18e61a2c9a47b45f87ca0d.1339404887.git.wpan@redhat.com> <4FD64A19.8000003@gmail.com> <31758.1339448166@death.nxdomain> <4FD65F78.2070001@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Weiping Pan , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3FUTF-8=3FB=3FTmljb2xhcyBkZSBQZXNsb8O8YW4=3D=3F=3D?= Return-path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:59071 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751273Ab2FKV32 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:29:28 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e32.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:29:27 -0600 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4E33E40059 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:29:11 +0000 (WET) Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q5BLSV5G065196 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:28:55 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q5BLSFZo029837 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:28:16 -0600 In-reply-to: <4FD65F78.2070001@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nicolas de Peslo=C3=BCan wrote: >Le 11/06/2012 22:56, Jay Vosburgh a =C3=A9crit : >> Nicolas de Peslo=C3=BCan wrote: [...] >>> May I suggest we only issue a warning, store the new value for >>> primary_reselect, and avoid calling bond_select_active_slave(bond),= if >>> !USE_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)? >>> >>> That way, we do not add one more constraint on the order one must w= rite into sysfs. >> >> I'm not in favor of changing anything here. There's already a >> message that primary_reselect is being changed, I think that's >> sufficient. The other similar cases don't issue warnings, e.g., set= ting >> xmit_hash_policy doesn't complain if the mode is not one that utiliz= es >> the hash. > >Agreed. Calling bond_select_active_slave(bond) looks safe, even for mo= de >that does not use primary, so we don't need to change anything. > >Would you support other patch similar to 1/3 in this thread, that try = to >relax the order to write into sysfs for bonding? Yes. As long as the setting takes effect when it should, I see no problem with permitting options that are currently not applicable to be changed at any time. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com