Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:52:26 +0800 | From | Cong Wang <> | Subject | Re: [v3 PATCH 1/2] bonding: sync netpoll code with bridge |
| |
于 2010年12月09日 15:33, Cong Wang 写道: > 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |