From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicolas_de_Peslo=FCan?= Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: reinject arps into bonding slave instead of master Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:12:48 +0100 Message-ID: <4D753C40.2030502@gmail.com> References: <1299320969-7951-1-git-send-email-jpirko@redhat.com> <1299320969-7951-7-git-send-email-jpirko@redhat.com> <4D7249BA.8030401@gmail.com> <20110305144314.GC8573@psychotron.redhat.com> <4D724DB4.9020207@gmail.com> <4D737D00.20406@gmail.com> <20110306133413.GB2795@psychotron.redhat.com> <20110307125059.GA6053@psychotron.brq.redhat.com> <20110307143202.GS11864@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, kaber@trash.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: Andy Gospodarek Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:53476 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750925Ab1CGUMv (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:12:51 -0500 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so4535566wyg.19 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:12:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110307143202.GS11864@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 07/03/2011 15:32, Andy Gospodarek a =E9crit : > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:51:00PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Recent patch "bonding: move processing of recv handlers into >> handle_frame()" caused a regression on following net scheme: >> >> eth0 - bond0 - bond0.5 >> >> where arp monitoring is happening over vlan. This patch fixes it by >> reinjecting the arp packet into bonding slave device so the bonding >> rx_handler can pickup and process it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Reviewed-by: Nicolas de Peslo=FCan > Thanks, Jiri. I will test and make sure it works correctly now. I k= now > several users who would be quite disappointed if this feature was > removed. Andy, while you are testing it, can you ensure it also works for the fo= llowing setup? eth0 -> bond0 -> br0 -> br0.100 I think it should, as long as the slave is the first device in the path= =2E Can you imagine a bonding setup where the slaves are not first in the p= ath? eth0 -> br0 -> bond0? eth0 -> eth1(macvlan) -> bond0? eth0 -> eth0.100 -> bond0? Nicolas.