netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@gmail.com>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Remarks and comments about ipconfig behavior
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:21:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5052403B.4040408@gmail.com> (raw)

Hey Fellows !

I've been figuring a strange behavior today and I'd like to share with 
you both experience and remarks.

On my system that runs a 3.2.29 but that's also applicable with 
linux-next and all other releases.

As shown here : 
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=blob;f=net/ipv4/ipconfig.c;h=67e8a6b086ea7a0d2c4cc986ed6ed0e6b4414c6a;hb=HEAD#l262 
, if you specify an ip= option on the cmdline, the kernel is expecting 
the carrier to be present unless it will make a loop up to 2mn as per 
CONF_CARRIER_TIMEOUT value.

That lever for me two points :
- why is this timeout setup for so long ? Even with a spantree 
configuration, not having a carrier for 2mn is *waow* ... Does a 30sec 
could not be enough ? What is the need of waiting so long time ?

- Until we get the carrier, the kernel just stops and the boot process 
is totally locked but there isn't any message shown to the user. The 
system really look like frozen/dead for 2 minutes.

I spent a complete day trying to understand why my box was unable to 
boot while the network cable was removed.
I just discover this behavior by comparing log files to understand that 
was the reason.


So my suggestion would be the following and I can offer patches if you 
agree on thoses points :


- reducing the timeout to something smaller like 30sec
- display a message every second to inform the user we are waiting the 
carrier to satisfy the ipconfig option

What are you thoughts on that ?

Thanks you,
Erwan Velu

             reply	other threads:[~2012-09-13 20:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-13 20:21 Erwan Velu [this message]
2012-09-13 20:31 ` Remarks and comments about ipconfig behavior David Miller
2012-09-13 20:37   ` Erwan Velu
2012-09-13 20:45     ` David Miller
2012-09-13 21:59       ` [PATCH] ipconfig: Inform user if carrier is not ready Erwan Velu
2012-09-14  5:36         ` Francois Romieu
     [not found]         ` <50525C5D.8040302@hp.com>
2012-09-14 19:08           ` [PATCH V2] " Erwan Velu
2012-09-14 19:17             ` David Miller
2012-09-14 19:30               ` [PATCH V3] " Erwan Velu
2012-09-14 19:42                 ` David Miller
2012-09-14 20:13                   ` Erwan Velu
2012-09-14 20:23                     ` David Miller
2012-09-14 20:59                       ` Erwan Velu
2012-09-14 19:31               ` [PATCH V2] " Erwan Velu
2012-09-14 19:19             ` Rick Jones
2012-09-15 16:18   ` Remarks and comments about ipconfig behavior Erwan Velu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5052403B.4040408@gmail.com \
    --to=erwanaliasr1@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).