Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] bonding:check mode when modify primary_reselect

From: Jay Vosburgh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:56:06 -0700

Nicolas de Pesloüan 	<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Le 11/06/2012 11:00, Weiping Pan a écrit :
>> Using a primary_reselect only makes sense in active backup, TLB or ALB modes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Weiping Pan<[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c |    7 +++++++
>>   1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> index 485bedb..1b0f3cd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> @@ -1123,6 +1123,13 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_primary_reselect(struct device *d,
>>   	if (!rtnl_trylock())
>>   		return restart_syscall();
>>
>> +	if (!USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)) {
>> +		pr_err("%s: Unable to set primary_reselect; %s is in mode %d\n",
>> +			bond->dev->name, bond->dev->name, bond->params.mode);
>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	new_value = bond_parse_parm(buf, pri_reselect_tbl);
>>   	if (new_value<  0)  {
>>   		pr_err("%s: Ignoring invalid primary_reselect value %.*s.\n",
>
>
>May I suggest we only issue a warning, store the new value for
>primary_reselect, and avoid calling bond_select_active_slave(bond), if
>!USE_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)?
>
>That way, we do not add one more constraint on the order one must write into sysfs.

	I'm not in favor of changing anything here.  There's already a
message that primary_reselect is being changed, I think that's
sufficient.  The other similar cases don't issue warnings, e.g., setting
xmit_hash_policy doesn't complain if the mode is not one that utilizes
the hash.

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [email-masked]