From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikolay Aleksandrov Subject: Re: [net-next,1/3] bonding: fix vlan 0 addition and removal Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 11:01:31 +0200 Message-ID: <5200BB6B.3080707@redhat.com> References: <1375709304-16778-2-git-send-email-nikolay@redhat.com> <20130805215126.GB3859@redhat.com> <5200B0C4.2020101@redhat.com> <20130806085111.GL22756@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, fubar@us.ibm.com, andy@greyhouse.net, davem@davemloft.net, kaber@trash.net To: Veaceslav Falico Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2021 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755287Ab3HFJBu (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2013 05:01:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130806085111.GL22756@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/06/2013 10:51 AM, Veaceslav Falico wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:16:04AM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: >> On 08/05/2013 11:51 PM, Veaceslav Falico wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:28:22PM +0200, nikolay@redhat.com wrote: >>> ...snip... >>>> This is fixed by forbidding the addition/removal of vlan 0 through the >>>> bond's ndo_vlan_rx_add/kill_vid functions, and adding/removing it only >>>> when >>>> vlan 0 is in fact being created (or destroyed) on top of a bond interface >>>> in the bond's netdev handling function. >>> >>> Isn't that a bit too intrusive/hacky? I don't think we should treat vlan id >>> 0 somehow differently in terms of adding/removing, though I might be >>> wrong... >>> >> I didn't want to touch the vlan code, so I solved the problem entirely in >> the bonding, mind you there's still a bug when loading the 8021q module >> we'll bump up every slave's vlan 0 refcnt without adding the vlan, and it >> won't get bumped down. >> In my patch that problem still persists but only when an actual vlan 0 is >> being created. > > I'll look into that, though maybe we'll require another patch to fix it. > You can take a look at: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg241858.html#.UgC5rxoW2Y4 and http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg241999.html#.UgC5_BoW2Y4 I think I've explained the refcnt bug well there. Thanks, Nik