Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero

[Nikolay Aleksandrov]

On 22/11/2022 23:12, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 22/11/2022 17:37, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>> On 11/22/22 09:45, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:36 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/22 05:59, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:30 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>>>>>> Before this change when a bond in mode 2 lost link, all of its slaves
>>>>>> lost link, the bonding device would never recover even after the
>>>>>> expiration of updelay. This change removes the updelay when the bond
>>>>>> currently has no usable links. Conforming to bonding.txt section 13.1
>>>>>> paragraph 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you targeting net-next? This looks like something suitable to
>>>>> the -net tree to me. If, so could you please include a Fixes tag?
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that we can add new self-tests even via the -net tree.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I could not find a reasonable fixes tag for this, hence why I targeted
>>>> the net-next tree.
>>>
>>> When in doubt I think it's preferrable to point out a commit surely
>>> affected by the issue - even if that is possibly not the one
>>> introducing the issue - than no Fixes as all. The lack of tag will make
>>> more difficult the work for stable teams.
>>>
>>> In this specific case I think that:
>>>
>>> Fixes: 41f891004063 ("bonding: ignore updelay param when there is no active slave")
>>>
>>> should be ok, WDYT? if you agree would you mind repost for -net?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>
>> Yes that looks like a good one. I will repost to -net a v2 that includes changes to reduce the number of icmp echos sent before failing the test.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Jon
>>
> 
> One minor nit - could you please change "mode 2" to "mode balance-xor" ?
> It saves reviewers some grepping around the code to see what is mode 2.
> Obviously one has to dig in the code to see how it's affected, but still
> it is a bit more understandable. It'd be nice to add more as to why the link is not recovered,
> I get it after reading the code, but it would be nice to include a more detailed explanation in the
> commit message as well.
> 
> Thanks,
>  Nik
> 

Ah, I just noticed I'm late to the party. :)
Nevermind my comments, no need for a v3.