lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-15 11:55    [W:0.569 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site