Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next] bonding: handle slave's name change with primary_slave logic

From: Ding Tianhong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:38:50 +0800

On 2014/1/16 9:04, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> Currently, if a slave's name change, we just pass it by. However, if the
> slave is a current primary_slave, then we end up with using a slave, whose
> name != params.primary, for primary_slave. And vice-versa, if we don't have
> a primary_slave but have params.primary set - we will not detected a new
> primary_slave.
> 
> Fix this by catching the NETDEV_CHANGENAME event and setting primary_slave
> accordingly. Also, if the primary_slave was changed, issue a reselection of
> the active slave, cause the priorities have changed.
> 
> Reported-by: Ding Tianhong <[email-masked]>
> CC: Ding Tianhong <[email-masked]>
> CC: Jay Vosburgh <[email-masked]>
> CC: Andy Gospodarek <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <[email-masked]>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     v3->v4:
>     Fix style issue.
>     
>     v2->v3:
>     Reword the info message, per Jay's comment.
>     
>     v1->v2:
>     Proper patch
> 
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index f2fe6cb..f00dd45 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -2860,9 +2860,27 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event,
>  		 */
>  		break;
>  	case NETDEV_CHANGENAME:
> -		/*
> -		 * TODO: handle changing the primary's name
> -		 */
> +		/* we don't care if we don't have primary set */
> +		if (!USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode) ||
> +		    !bond->params.primary[0])
> +			break;
> +
> +		if (slave == bond->primary_slave) {
> +			/* slave's name changed - he's no longer primary */
> +			bond->primary_slave = NULL;
> +		} else if (!strcmp(slave_dev->name, bond->params.primary)) {
> +			/* we have a new primary slave */
> +			bond->primary_slave = slave;
> +		} else { /* we didn't change primary - exit */
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
why not remove all the { } for the if else, there are only one line for each if.

but seems good for logic.

Acked-by: Ding Tianhong <[email-masked]>

> +		pr_info("%s: Primary slave changed to %s, reselecting active slave.\n",
> +			bond->dev->name, bond->primary_slave ? slave_dev->name :
> +							       "none");
> +		write_lock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
> +		bond_select_active_slave(bond);
> +		write_unlock_bh(&bond->curr_slave_lock);
>  		break;
>  	case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
>  		bond_compute_features(bond);
>