Re: [PATCHv4 iproute2-next] iplink: bond_slave: add support for actor_port_prio

[Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 11:43:19AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Add support for the actor_port_prio option for bond slaves.
> >This per-port priority can be used by the bonding driver in ad_select to
> >choose the higher-priority aggregator during failover.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>
> >---
> >v4: no update
> >v3: rename ad_actor_port_prio to actor_port_prio
> >v2: no update
> >---
> > ip/iplink_bond.c       |  1 +
> > ip/iplink_bond_slave.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> > man/man8/ip-link.8.in  |  6 ++++++
> > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/ip/iplink_bond.c b/ip/iplink_bond.c
> >index d6960f6d9b03..1a2c1b3042a0 100644
> >--- a/ip/iplink_bond.c
> >+++ b/ip/iplink_bond.c
> >@@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ static const char *ad_select_tbl[] = {
> > 	"stable",
> > 	"bandwidth",
> > 	"count",
> >+	"prio",
> 
> 	Should this be actor_port_prio?

hmm, actor_port_prio correspond to the ip link option name, which is also
acceptable.

While in kernel, we defined the select policy as

        { "stable",    BOND_AD_STABLE,    BOND_VALFLAG_DEFAULT},
        { "bandwidth", BOND_AD_BANDWIDTH, 0},
        { "count",     BOND_AD_COUNT,     0},
+       { "prio",      BOND_AD_PRIO,      0},

So I think the prio here should also be OK.

You can decide which one to use.

Thanks
Hangbin