Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] net: bonding: use workqueue to make sure peer notify updated in lacp mode
From: Hangbin Liu <hidden>
Date: 2025-12-01 06:58:08
Hi Tonghao, On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 03:48:43PM +0800, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
--- v1: - This patch is actually version v3, https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20251118090305.35558-1-tonghao@bamaicloud.com/ - add a comment why we use the trylock. - add this patch to series ---
I think you can move the change logs to cover letter.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
/** * bond_change_active_slave - change the active slave into the specified one * @bond: our bonding struct@@ -1270,8 +1299,6 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active) BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW); if (new_active) { - bool should_notify_peers = false; - bond_set_slave_active_flags(new_active, BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_NOW);@@ -1280,19 +1307,17 @@ void bond_change_active_slave(struct bonding *bond, struct slave *new_active) old_active); if (netif_running(bond->dev)) { - bond->send_peer_notif = - bond->params.num_peer_notif * - max(1, bond->params.peer_notif_delay); - should_notify_peers = - bond_should_notify_peers(bond); + bond_peer_notify_reset(bond); + + if (bond_should_notify_peers(bond)) { + bond->send_peer_notif--; + call_netdevice_notifiers( + NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS, + bond->dev); + } } call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_BONDING_FAILOVER, bond->dev); - if (should_notify_peers) { - bond->send_peer_notif--; - call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS, - bond->dev); - } } }
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? Thanks Hangbin