Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero

[Jonathan Toppins]

On 11/22/22 16:15, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 22/11/2022 23:12, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > On 22/11/2022 17:37, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > > On 11/22/22 09:45, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:36 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > > > > On 11/22/22 05:59, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:30 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > > > > > > Before this change when a bond in mode 2 lost link, all of its slaves
> > > > > > > lost link, the bonding device would never recover even after the
> > > > > > > expiration of updelay. This change removes the updelay when the bond
> > > > > > > currently has no usable links. Conforming to bonding.txt section 13.1
> > > > > > > paragraph 4.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are you targeting net-next? This looks like something suitable to
> > > > > > the -net tree to me. If, so could you please include a Fixes tag?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that we can add new self-tests even via the -net tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could not find a reasonable fixes tag for this, hence why I targeted
> > > > > the net-next tree.
> > > >
> > > > When in doubt I think it's preferrable to point out a commit surely
> > > > affected by the issue - even if that is possibly not the one
> > > > introducing the issue - than no Fixes as all. The lack of tag will make
> > > > more difficult the work for stable teams.
> > > >
> > > > In this specific case I think that:
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 41f891004063 ("bonding: ignore updelay param when there is no active slave")
> > > >
> > > > should be ok, WDYT? if you agree would you mind repost for -net?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo
> > >
> > > Yes that looks like a good one. I will repost to -net a v2 that includes changes to reduce the number of icmp echos sent before failing the test.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Jon
> >
> > One minor nit - could you please change "mode 2" to "mode balance-xor" ?
> > It saves reviewers some grepping around the code to see what is mode 2.
> > Obviously one has to dig in the code to see how it's affected, but still
> > it is a bit more understandable. It'd be nice to add more as to why the link is not recovered,
> > I get it after reading the code, but it would be nice to include a more detailed explanation in the
> > commit message as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   Nik
>
> Ah, I just noticed I'm late to the party. :)
> Nevermind my comments, no need for a v3.

If there are other issues with v2. I will gladly include these comments 
in a v3.

Thanks,
-Jon