From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=95.215.58.44 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793324358; b=sZPiWpsQxLTwByiU36EEt+c11+6/MC3m4pYzig8obBzpG6vIZhVJjNKa9LrPRKYKQ3N+ 9l5sDXcYFlYBAftaxzZIZ62QWaRCci4WsLNzhWcyNTMpnAqdVrFlILDl8+aj7EEMSYqT6 jNuvX4tNrTCfw3QCgS4xbCIO8hthTQd9IwH+i/2gDYju03Q/G7Af+NKCEynOK6Tgo8tTp svDDcoknb5zE4XXzcIZ7+l+bcisBVEcfjilsrtuOx/nX/bPEYTCG0BrZ77Fey5QHlJNL2 cuYv9dQexOr6N1tXhlK/ILaMeZceOedZSSMxvC9GtTAtz2wcZOGnG6mi2BzYMwI/dVw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793324358; h=DMARC-Filter:X-Envelope-To:DKIM-Signature:X-Envelope-To:Received: X-Mizu-Trace-ID:X-Migadu-Flow:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=3ObznMGziWVDuDmi/B/e6r0qgBFqb2H9Q1tdiVz3lOo=; b=J2Ap3ks5dp8msEpNzoNZhKX9bCLiMUqlPLsjDn0EGqg6MOPwc0VIDNtFTtktA0zDV8if 5EXL9ZTpISN1VkrUmj5zsPSob2YHFE45pT0iCwbmFN3jvmEWA8xCh135RGz9NhTI3Aa2P CjpdFvGGgDyUHZSN4LSrgpgJu7zGLD9Qnw2Sotd5N6IQ1GHNo5V7fNBeWTiFTpLi4wMky W0Rm6uOZGi1ElkZEBp2gaP1UdrIUPmh4kkBfifpkX3czVLa2mubSRFm1ZiLy+Qr1zmzt7 8TV61DulAU35jeniXUdcceiklLs9ALcBvZqJEJxMIZwpXbzenwYkustX3Rx1OqHlWAg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=key1 header.b=KNOeGwIE; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=95.215.58.44 Received: from mta1.migadu.com (out-44.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1625F606A31C for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 01:39:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 1625F606A31C Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=key1 header.b=KNOeGwIE X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=uZpejHfck/NqAUU86XpmBLgJQN6Mm0beX22rzGtYcLA=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1793324353; v=1; x=1793929153; b=KNOeGwIEDhwO1zgbZKCWMh8iG3fLVrZPDwQua/3cHpHj1mPqHOufDcfGlSXDZa8j0wstR9fR 1R+X9r7zWABj2IMaUKySPvEVQH38BCMyTGBZ7cZW5UkNNY1+dDD9gaWR/qufveY5y8GCwHpN0xY fmKpSc+6QnF+Yng8chte6tVY= X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by mta10.migadu.com with ESMTPS id ca05b1684fac7163; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 01:39:13 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: ca05b1684fac7163 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 09:39:00 +0800 From: Hangbin Liu To: Jay Vosburgh Cc: Timur Stukan , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Nikolay Aleksandrov , Fernando Fernandez Mancera , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] bonding: fix missing down path on speed/duplex failure after FAIL->UP Message-ID: References: <20261028104758.299129-1-timur.stukan.linux@gmail.com> <91955.1793289071@vermin> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <91955.1793289071@vermin> Hi Jay, On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 10:51:11AM -0500, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > >diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > >index 7019e5d8fdc8..9bafcddbb453 100644 > >--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > >+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > > > > case BOND_LINK_FAIL: > >@@ -2919,6 +2935,12 @@ static void bond_mii_monitor(struct work_struct *work) > > > > if (commit) { > > bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, iter) { > >+ /* UP state is committed by bond_miimon_commit() > >+ * after the speed and duplex check, so that it > >+ * can still see the previous link state. > >+ */ > >+ if (slave->link_new_state == BOND_LINK_UP) > >+ continue; > > bond_commit_link_state(slave, > > BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_LATER); > > Reading bond_commit_link_state(), for this call site, all it > really does is slave->link = slave->link_new_state, when link_new_state > != BOND_LINK_NOCHAGE. The changes to ->should_notify_link only matter > for the ARP monitor, so that part is effectively a no-op here. +1 > > Therefore, I wonder if it would be cleaner overall to not do the > bond_commit_link_state here at all, but instead keep what you've added > in the BOND_LINK_UP part of bond_miimon_commit, and then add calls to > bond_set_slave_link_state(slave, ..., BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_LATER) to the > BOND_LINK_FAIL/BOND_LINK_BACK case to make the change stick. > > A quick hack patch that I have not tested to hopefully > illustrate what I mean: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > index 756d79281ffc..5fb215fa85f6 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > @@ -2877,6 +2877,8 @@ static void bond_miimon_commit(struct bonding *bond) > > case BOND_LINK_FAIL: > case BOND_LINK_BACK: > + bond_set_slave_link_state(slave, slave->link_new_state, > + BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_LATER); - bond_set_slave_link_state(slave, slave->link_new_state, BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_LATER) - bond_propose_link_state(slave, slave->link_new_state) - slave->link_new_state = slave->link_new_state This looks like a no-op here. Maybe just call bond_commit_link_state()? The bond_set_slave_link_state() in bond_miimon_commit() seems also have this issue. Thanks Hangbin > slave_dbg(bond->dev, slave->dev, "link_new_state %d on slave\n", > slave->link_new_state); > continue; > @@ -2933,19 +2935,8 @@ static void bond_mii_monitor(struct work_struct *work) > goto re_arm; > } > > - if (commit) { > - bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, iter) { > - /* UP state is committed by bond_miimon_commit() > - * after the speed and duplex check, so that it > - * can still see the previous link state. > - */ > - if (slave->link_new_state == BOND_LINK_UP) > - continue; > - bond_commit_link_state(slave, > - BOND_SLAVE_NOTIFY_LATER); > - } > + if (commit) > bond_miimon_commit(bond); > - } > > if (bond->send_peer_notif) > bond_peer_notify_may_events(bond, true); > > > Thoughts? > > -J > > --- > -Jay Vosburgh, jv@jvosburgh.net