Jiri Pirko <[email protected]> wrote:
>Check for IFF_BONDING as this flag is set-up for all bonding devices.
>
>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
>---
> drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 4 +---
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>index 9f9600b..67714a4 100644
>--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
>@@ -285,9 +285,7 @@ static int fcoe_interface_setup(struct fcoe_interface
>*fcoe,
> }
>
> /* Do not support for bonding device */
>- if ((netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_ALB) ||
>- (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE) ||
>- (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_MASTER_8023AD)) {
>+ if (netdev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) {
> FCOE_NETDEV_DBG(netdev, "Bonded interfaces not supported\n");
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> }
Based on past discussions, I believe the intent of the code is
to permit FCOE over bonding only for active-backup mode, and possibly
for -xor/-rr as well.
I'm not sure if the slave or the master is what's being tested
here, so I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. I suspect it's the
master, as I recall discussion of one configuration involving
active-backup mode balancing FCOE traffic over both the active and
inactive slaves. FCOE uses the "orig_dev" logic in __netif_receive_skb
to have the packets delivered even on the nominally inactive slave.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [email protected]
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
