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

[Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>]

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@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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