From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756551AbdESXRJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2017 19:17:09 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:59090 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755250AbdESXRG (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 19:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20170519.191705.577061587119695633.davem@davemloft.net> To: jarod@redhat.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bonding: fix accounting of active ports in 3ad From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <95c9a6b9-ac60-caa1-416d-c74e1aea08f4@redhat.com> References: <20170517151144.57865-1-jarod@redhat.com> <20170519.171417.473208349438307952.davem@davemloft.net> <95c9a6b9-ac60-caa1-416d-c74e1aea08f4@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Fri, 19 May 2017 15:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jarod Wilson Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 18:15:57 -0400 > On 2017-05-19 5:14 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Jarod Wilson >> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 11:11:44 -0400 >> >>> As of 7bb11dc9f59d and 0622cab0341c, bond slaves in a 3ad bond are not >>> removed from the aggregator when they are down, and the active slave >>> count >>> is NOT equal to number of ports in the aggregator, but rather the >>> number >>> of ports in the aggregator that are still enabled. >> ... >>> Remedy it by using the same logic introduced in >>> 7bb11dc9f59d in __bond_3ad_get_active_agg_info(), so sysfs, procfs and >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> netlink all report the number of active ports. >> I think you mean to reference commit 0622cab0341c here not >> 7bb11dc9f59d. > > D'oh, yes, you are entirely correct. Should I submit a v2 with that > correction? Yes, please.