On 2016-07-14 16:53, Yousong Zhou wrote: > On 14/07/2016, Felix Fietkau <n...@nbd.name> wrote: >> On 2016-07-14 13:28, Hans Dedecker wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Yousong Zhou <yszhou4t...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 14 July 2016 at 16:14, Hans Dedecker <dedec...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Commit c6858766 adds teardown support when l3_dev link is lost >>>>> especially for shell protocols >>>>> that have no proto task. However shell protocols which have a proto task >>>>> running like ppp will >>>>> also be teared down which is not always the expected action. >>>>> As an example the PPP daemon can be put into persist state trying to >>>>> re-establish the link via >>>>> a hold off mechanism which is not possible when the daemon is terminated >>>>> by the proto shell >>>>> teardown. >>>>> Therefore restrict the teardown action for shell protocols having no >>>>> proto task. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How about adding an extra flag like managed-link, persistent-link, >>>> on-demand-link? It looks to me doing teardown at link-down is more >>>> common a case. >>> Initially I was thinking about adding another flag like you propose >>> but then I was doubting if the change in behavior for shell protocols >>> having a proto task task was on purpose or not. In case of PPP and >>> link failure you don't want an immediate restart by netifd in some >>> cases (see https://github.com/lede-project/source/pull/200) as PPP >>> daemon can take care of the link re-negotiation based on a holdoff >>> timeout. >>> Additionally if the wan link loses connectivity a link down >>> notification will be received on the main device which will teardown >>> the protocol. Anyway I'm open for suggestions which way to go forward. >> Yousong, >> >> please provide some more details on where your commit c6858766 is >> actually needed/useful. In all the use cases I can think of, handling >> setup/teardown based on the l2 dev should be enough. >> >> - Felix >> > > The issue them was that when l2tp-xxx went down, netifd has no proto > task state to be notified of, and main_dev state seemed unchanged. If > I remeber and understand the code correcly other pppd shell protos do > teardown because of proto task event, not any device link state, and I > thought it's reasonable and should not hurt to do an explicit > teardown on link down. It seems to me that we should do less magic here and make the behavior opt-in via an explicit flag that needs to be enabled by the proto handler.
- Felix _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
