| To: | "Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, "Hen, Shmulik" <shmulik.hen@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: major bonding bug? |
| From: | Amir Noam <amir.noam@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:45:14 +0200 |
| Cc: | "Marom, Noam" <noam.marom@xxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991CE@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com> |
| References: | <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991CE@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.5.3 |
On Tuesday 30 December 2003 06:31 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote: > hmmm... > > > It looks like a lot of code now depends on global variable > "bond_mode". Actually, this has always been the case in the bonding module. > This looks very wrong... bonding mode should be per-interface, not > global to the entire driver. What happens when a user wants > BOND_MODE_ROUNDROBIN on bond0, and BOND_MODE_TLB on bond1? We agree that it looks very wrong, and this is in fact one of the features we've been working on lately. It is not a trivial fix, since, as you've noted, a lot of the code depends on the bond settings being global. We plan to start releasing patches to address this issue very soon (probably even starting tomorrow). -- Amir |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | major bonding bug?, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch] clean up tcp_sk(), 2.6.0, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Previous by Thread: | major bonding bug?, Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: major bonding bug?, Jay Vosburgh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |