From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
To: "Banerjee, Debabrata" <dbanerje@akamai.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
"Andy Gospodarek" <andy@greyhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] bonding: use common mac addr checks
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 14:29:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5809.1526074156@famine> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b51c882f54244e5972da43d7955c959@usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Banerjee, Debabrata <dbanerje@akamai.com> wrote:
>> From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosburgh@canonical.com]
>> Debabrata Banerjee <dbanerje@akamai.com> wrote:
>
>> >- if
>> (!ether_addr_equal_64bits(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst,
>> >- mac_bcast) &&
>> >-
>> !is_zero_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) {
>> >+ if
>> (is_valid_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) {
>>
>> This change and the similar ones below will now fail non-broadcast
>> multicast Ethernet addresses, where the prior code would not. Is this an
>> intentional change?
>
>Yes I don't see how it makes sense to use multicast addresses at all, but I may be missing something. It's also illegal according to rfc1812 3.3.2, but obviously this balancing mode is trying to be very clever. We probably shouldn't violate the rfc anyway.
Fair enough, but I think it would be good to call this out in
the change log just in case it does somehow cause a regression.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-11 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-11 19:25 [PATCH net-next 0/4] bonding: performance and reliability Debabrata Banerjee
2018-05-11 19:25 ` [PATCH net-next 1/4] bonding: don't queue up extraneous rlb updates Debabrata Banerjee
2018-05-11 19:25 ` [PATCH net-next 2/4] bonding: use common mac addr checks Debabrata Banerjee
2018-05-11 20:53 ` Jay Vosburgh
2018-05-11 21:25 ` Banerjee, Debabrata
2018-05-11 21:29 ` Jay Vosburgh [this message]
2018-05-11 19:25 ` [PATCH net-next 3/4] bonding: allow use of tx hashing in balance-alb Debabrata Banerjee
2018-05-11 21:49 ` Jay Vosburgh
2018-05-11 19:25 ` [PATCH net-next 4/4] bonding: allow carrier and link status to determine link state Debabrata Banerjee
2018-05-11 22:04 ` Jay Vosburgh
2018-05-14 17:39 ` Banerjee, Debabrata
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=5809.1526074156@famine \
--to=jay.vosburgh@canonical.com \
--cc=andy@greyhouse.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dbanerje@akamai.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vfalico@gmail.com \
/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).