Re: [v3 PATCH 1/2] bonding: sync netpoll code with bridge

[Cong Wang]

ä 2010å12æ09æ 15:33, Cong Wang åé:
> On 12/08/10 21:57, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:52:08AM -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> > > -    bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, i) {
> > > -        if ((slave->dev->priv_flags&  IFF_DISABLE_NETPOLL) ||
> > > -            !slave->dev->netdev_ops->ndo_poll_controller)
> > > -            ret = false;
> > > +    np = kmalloc(sizeof(*np), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +    err = -ENOMEM;
> > > +    if (!np)
> > > +        goto out;
> > > +
> > > +    np->dev = slave->dev;
> > > +    err = __netpoll_setup(np);
> > Setting up our own netpoll instance on each slave worries me a bit.  The
> > implication here is that, by doing so, some frames will get entirely processed
> > by the slave.  Most notably arp frames.  That means anything that gets queued up
> > to the arp_tx queue in __netpoll_rx will get processed during that poll event,
> > and responded to with the mac of the slave device, rather than with the mac of
> > the bond device, which isn't always what you want.  I think if you go with this
> > route, you'll need to add code to netpoll_poll_dev, right before the call to
> > service_arp_queue, to check if IFF_SLAVE is set in priv_flags, and move the list
> > to the master device, or some such.
>
>
> Good point! Will fix i

Hi, Neil,

I think we should do that in bond_poll_controller() rather than netpoll_poll_dev(),
right? Since this is bond-specific. Does moving all arp_tx of slaves to their bond
address your concern?

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/