Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] net: bonding: use workqueue to make sure peer notify updated in lacp mode

[Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 07:01:23PM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> >>> I don’t see the benefit of moving NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS before NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER.
> >>> Is there a specific reason or scenario where this ordering change is required?
> >> No, to simplify the code, and use common peer notify reset function.
> > 
> > bond_change_active_slave() is called under RTNL lock. We can use
> > bond_peer_notify_reset() here. But I don't think there is a need to move
> > NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS before NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER.
> Is there a dependency relationship between NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS and NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER?
> In vlan, macvlan, ipvlan netdev, NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS and NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER use the same action.
> net/8021q/vlan.c
> drivers/net/macvlan.c
> drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c

Quote from ad246c992bea ("ipv4, ipv6, bonding: Restore control over number of peer notifications")

"""
    For backward compatibility, we should retain the module parameters and
    sysfs attributes to control the number of peer notifications
    (gratuitous ARPs and unsolicited NAs) sent after bonding failover.
"""

In theory we should send notify after failover. The infiniband driver also
has specific functions to handle NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER. I'm not sure if the
miss-order affect it. Maybe Jay knows more.

Thanks
Hangbin