Joe Eykholt <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/28/11 10:37 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:54:29PM CET, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On 2/28/11 9:15 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>>> 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]
>>>
>>> Right. That was the intent. It should work on the physical dev, but
>>> probably
>>> not on the master of the bond.
>>>
>>> If you have a master/slave bond for IPv4 between eth1 and eth2, say,
>>> and they are going to two different DCE (FCoE) switches, presumably on
>>> different VSANs but with ultimate access to the same disks,
>>> then you want to split the FCoE traffic in active/active
>>> mode using separate FCoE instances on eth1 and eth2 even though IP
>>> is using active/standby on bond0. This should work. But, putting fcoe
>>> on bond0 isn't going to do what you want.
>>>
>>> However, it seems like the check above shouldn't be checking
>>> IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE. I can't test this.
>>
>> OK. So I guess the right check should be for:
>> (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_BONDING&& netdev->flags& IFF_MASTER)
>
>I think that's OK. How about just checking for MASTER?
>When is MASTER going to be set without BONDING?
One or two other things besides bonding use IFF_MASTER, but
IFF_BONDING is only for bonding.
>Otherwise I'd add some parens or I might code this as:
>
> if ((netdev->priv_flags & (IFF_BONDING | IFF_MASTER)) ==
> (IFF_BONDING | IFF_MASTER))
This doesn't work because the flags are kept in different
places, IFF_MASTER is in flags and IFF_BONDING in priv_flags.
-J
>Which is less clear, I know, but used to generate better code.
>The compiler might generate the same code these days.
>Not that this is performance-critical or anything.
>
>> This would disable adding all bond devices (like bond0 etc) and allows
>> to use enslaved physdevs.
>>
>> Note that checking for mode is irrelevant here. Mode could be easily
>> changed later without fcoe knowing that.
This is also true.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, [email protected]
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
