Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/5] bonding: fix LACP PDU not sent on slave port sometimes

Sergei Shtylyov [off-list ref] wrote:

Hello.

On 1/26/2015 9:17 AM, Jonathan Toppins wrote:

quoted

From: Satish Ashok <redacted>

quoted

When a slave is added to a bond and it is not in full duplex mode,
AD_PORT_LACP_ENABLED flag is cleared, due to this LACP PDU is not sent

  s/is not/not being/.

	I don't have an issue with the original text, or the updating of
nearby debug messages to include the device name (below).  Worst case
would be to respin and add a mention of this to the commit message.

	-J

Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <redacted>

quoted

on slave. When the duplex is changed to full, the flag needs to be set
to send LACP PDU.

quoted

Cc: Andy Gospodarek <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Satish Ashok <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <redacted>
---
  drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c |   11 ++++++++---
  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
index e3c96b2..cfc4a9c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c

@@ -2219,8 +2219,10 @@ static int bond_3ad_rx_indication(struct lacpdu *lacpdu, struct slave *slave,
  		switch (lacpdu->subtype) {
  		case AD_TYPE_LACPDU:
  			ret = RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
-			netdev_dbg(slave->bond->dev, "Received LACPDU on port %d\n",
-				   port->actor_port_number);
+			netdev_dbg(slave->bond->dev,
+				   "Received LACPDU on port %d slave %s\n",
+				   port->actor_port_number,
+				   slave->dev->name);
  			/* Protect against concurrent state machines */
  			spin_lock(&slave->bond->mode_lock);
  			ad_rx_machine(lacpdu, port);

@@ -2312,7 +2314,10 @@ void bond_3ad_adapter_duplex_changed(struct slave *slave)
  	port->actor_admin_port_key &= ~AD_DUPLEX_KEY_MASKS;
  	port->actor_oper_port_key = port->actor_admin_port_key |=
  		__get_duplex(port);
-	netdev_dbg(slave->bond->dev, "Port %d changed duplex\n", port->actor_port_number);
+	netdev_dbg(slave->bond->dev, "Port %d slave %s changed duplex\n",
+		   port->actor_port_number, slave->dev->name);

  The above 2 changes seem unrelated/undocumented in the change log...

[...]

WBR, Sergei

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com