Subject: Re: [PATCH] net:bonding:support balance-alb with openvswitch

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 20:36:59 +0200

On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 02:17:03PM +0200, Mat Kowalski wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> Thanks a lot for the pointers, not much experienced with contributing here
> so I really appreciate. Just a question inline regarding the net vs net-next
> 
> On 28/07/2023 14:04, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Hi Mat,
> > 
> > + Jay Vosburgh <[email-masked]>
> >    Andy Gospodarek <[email-masked]>
> >    "David S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
> >    Eric Dumazet <[email-masked]>
> >    Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
> >    Paolo Abeni <[email-masked]>
> >    [email-masked]
> > 
> >    As per the output of
> >    ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --git-min-percent 25 this.patch
> >    which is the preferred method to determine the CC list for
> >    Networking patches. LKML can, in general, be excluded.
> > 
> > > Commit d5410ac7b0ba ("net:bonding:support balance-alb interface with
> > > vlan to bridge") introduced a support for balance-alb mode for
> > > interfaces connected to the linux bridge by fixing missing matching of
> > > MAC entry in FDB. In our testing we discovered that it still does not
> > > work when the bond is connected to the OVS bridge as show in diagram
> > > below:
> > > 
> > > eth1(mac:eth1_mac)--bond0(balance-alb,mac:eth0_mac)--eth0(mac:eth0_mac)
> > >                        |
> > >                      bond0.150(mac:eth0_mac)
> > >                                |
> > >                      ovs_bridge(ip:bridge_ip,mac:eth0_mac)
> > > 
> > > This patch fixes it by checking not only if the device is a bridge but
> > > also if it is an openvswitch.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mateusz Kowalski <[email-masked]>
> > Hi,
> > 
> > unfortunately this does not seem to apply to net-next.
> > Perhaps it needs to be rebased.
> > 
> > Also.
> > 
> > 1. For Networking patches, please include the target tree, in this case
> >     net-next, as opposed to net, which is for fixes, in the subject.
> > 
> > 	Subject: [PATCH net-next] ...
> It makes me wonder as in my view this is a fix for something that doesn't
> work today, not necessarily a new feature. Is net-next still a preferred
> target?

Hi Mat,

Certainly there is a discussion to be had on if this is a fix or a feature.

I would argue that it is a feature as it makes something new work
that did not work before. As opposed to fixing something that worked
incorrectly.

But there is certainly room for interpretation.

> > 
> > 2. Perhaps 'bonding; ' is a more appropriate prefix.
> > 
> > 	Subject: [PATCH net-next] bonding: ...
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> 
>