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

[Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@redhat.com>]

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@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
>>
> 
> 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