netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [SET 2][PATCH 2/8][bonding] Propagating master'

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [SET 2][PATCH 2/8][bonding] Propagating master'ssettings toslaves
From: Laurent DENIEL <laurent.deniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:31:35 +0200
Cc: shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: THALES ATM
References: <E791C176A6139242A988ABA8B3D9B38A014C9474@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200308111720.38472.shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx> <1060612481.1034.15.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200308111925.38278.shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx> <3F37C7C3.7070807@xxxxxxxxx> <3F37D2ED.B4B9223C@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3F37D5BF.8000702@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff Garzik a écrit :
>
> > You forgot one important aspect :
> >
> >   (4) does moving code to userspace break compatibility (or behavior)
> >       with user land applications (or systems)
> 
> I agree... assuming these userland interfaces are fairly standard and
> widely deployed.
> 
> > What can one do if say, kernel 2.[4|5] switches the NIC in 10 mseconds
> > while kernel 2.7 with user land daemon switches in a few seconds ?
> > nothing but stay with the previous version or fork the driver development 
> > ;-(
> 
> This is a silly example.  If that happens in practice, then that is a
> bug in the configuration of the userland daemon, or a bug in the
> kernel<->userland ABI.

Not a silly example but a real case that happened to me with another
operating system and I'd hate if it happens also with Linux ...
 
> > But I agree that it is interesting to do some stuff at user land, and if
> > the bonding had an option to disable the automatic failover policy,
> > this could be implemented with trigger towards user land application that
> > could use an ioctl call to switch to the appropriate NIC according to
> > the user lan configuration ...
> 
> Remember, ioctls are bad.  :)  Unix design mistake.

ioctl (which already exist) or something else, this is not the point here.

> > what happens when the 
> > system is heavily loaded ? 
> 
> What happens now ? 
> 
> > What happens if the application dies for 
> > some reason ? 
> 
> What happens when the kernel oopses? ;->

Such silly responses make me think that it is no longer worth to argue ...

Laurent


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>