Re: fcoe: correct checking for bonding

Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 08:04:07PM CET, robert.w.love@intel.com wrote:

On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 10:59 -0800, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:01:10 +0100

quoted

Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:09:18AM CET, robert.w.love@intel.com wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 01:55 -0800, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Or perhaps this should be applied to net-next?

I think this should go through scsi-misc as all the other
libfc/libfcoe/fcoe patches do.

quoted

Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:05:35AM CET, jpirko@redhat.com wrote:

quoted

Check for bonding master and refuse to use that.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <redacted>
---
drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c |    4 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
index 9f9600b..3becc6a 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c

@@ -285,9 +285,7 @@ static int fcoe_interface_setup(struct fcoe_interface *fcoe,

	}

	/* Do not support for bonding device */
-	if ((netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_ALB) ||
-	    (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE) ||
-	    (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_8023AD)) {
+	if (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING && netdev->flags & IFF_MASTER) {
		FCOE_NETDEV_DBG(netdev, "Bonded interfaces not supported\n");
		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
	}
-- 
1.7.3.4

James, feel free to pick up this patch. I don't have anything in my fcoe
tree right now that it would conflict with. I'll also put it in my tree
and resend if you don't put it into scsi-misc directly.

What's the status of this? Maybe this should rather go thru net-next

Sure, I can take this.  I'll look at it later.

Hi Dave,

  I'd rather have this patch go through scsi-misc. Most, if not all,
libfc, libfcoe and fcoe patches have taken this path. The way it has
been working is that I have been collecting fcoe patches and re-posting
them to scsi-misc after I have reviewed them and done some basic
testing.

  Taking a patch like this through net{-next} could cause a merge
problem at Linus' level if a later patch makes it though the normal
process and conflicts. This is what I want to avoid.

  This patch, although appreciated, isn't critical. I have collected it
into my tree and will re-post it to scsi-misc. I see no reason to treat
this patch differently from other patches.

Well I have another set of patches dependent on this one :(

  Ultimately I just want things to go smoothly, so I'll leave it up to
James and you to figure out what to do.

Thanks, //Rob