From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Haley Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 3/3] bonding,ipv4,ipv6,vlan: Handle NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER like NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:34:00 -0400 Message-ID: <4DADE3A8.3040206@hp.com> References: <1302911271.2845.41.camel@bwh-desktop> <22334.1302913805@death> <1303153792.2857.32.camel@bwh-desktop> <26398.1303240321@death> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ben Hutchings , David Miller , Andy Gospodarek , Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.18]:18753 "EHLO g4t0015.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751044Ab1DSTeE (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:34:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <26398.1303240321@death> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/19/2011 03:12 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >>> Brian Haley added the unsolicited NAs; I've added him to the cc >>> so perhaps he (or somebody else) can comment on the necessity of keeping >>> the ability to send multiple NAs. >> [...] >> >> How about restoring the parameters like this: > > I think the patch below is better than Brian's suggestion (new > single parameter) because it won't break existing configurations, even > though it is doing magic under the covers. If the magic is a real > concern, we could add logic to detect when both parameters are used and > set to different values, but I'm not really that worked up about it as > long as the magic is clearly documented. My patch was on-top of Ben's, it still left the old options around, just gave people time to notice they didn't work as before. It's not a big deal either way. -Brian