Re: [PATCH net 1/3] bonding:record primary when modify it via sysfs
From: Nicolas de Pesloüan <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-11 19:37:39
Le 11/06/2012 11:00, Weiping Pan a écrit :
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
If we modify primary via sysfs and it is not a valid slave, we should record it for future use, and this behavior is the same with bond_check_params(). Signed-off-by: Weiping Pan<redacted> --- drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c index aef42f0..485bedb 100644 --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c@@ -1082,8 +1082,12 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary(struct device *d, } } - pr_info("%s: Unable to set %.*s as primary slave.\n", - bond->dev->name, (int)strlen(buf) - 1, buf); + strncpy(bond->params.primary, ifname, IFNAMSIZ); + bond->params.primary[IFNAMSIZ - 1] = 0; + + pr_info("%s: Recording %s as primary, " + "but it has not been enslaved to %s yet.\n", + bond->dev->name, ifname, bond->dev->name); out: write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock); read_unlock(&bond->lock);
I like this one, because it tend to relax the current constraints one should respect on the order to
write into sysfs to setup bonding.
May I suggest we have a better info message, suggesting there might have a typo on the name of the
primary ?
> + pr_info("%s: Recording %s as primary, "
> + "but it has not been enslaved to %s yet. Possible typo?\n",
> + bond->dev->name, ifname, bond->dev->name);
Except from this cosmetic,
Acked-by: Nicolas de Pesloüan <redacted>
Nicolas.