Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: bonding: Notify ports about their initial state
From: Jay Vosburgh <hidden>
Date: 2020-11-19 18:18:12
Tobias Waldekranz [off-list ref] wrote:
When creating a static bond (e.g. balance-xor), all ports will always be enabled. This is set, and the corresponding notification is sent out, before the port is linked to the bond upper. In the offloaded case, this ordering is hard to deal with. The lower will first see a notification that it can not associate with any bond. Then the bond is joined. After that point no more notifications are sent, so all ports remain disabled.
Why are the notifications generated in __netdev_upper_dev_link (via bond_master_upper_dev_link) not sufficient?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
This change simply sends an extra notification once the port has been linked to the upper to synchronize the initial state. Signed-off-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com> --- drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c index 71c9677d135f..80c164198dcf 100644 --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c@@ -1897,6 +1897,8 @@ int bond_enslave(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct net_device *slave_dev,goto err_unregister; } + bond_lower_state_changed(new_slave); + res = bond_sysfs_slave_add(new_slave); if (res) { slave_dbg(bond_dev, slave_dev, "Error %d calling bond_sysfs_slave_add\n", res);
Would it be better to add this call further down, after all possible failures have been checked? I.e., if this new call to bond_lower_state_changed() completes, and then very soon afterwards the upper is unlinked, could that cause any issues? -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com