On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:15 AM Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/6/2018 4:50 PM, Chas Williams wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:55 PM Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> 02/08/2018 15:38, Doherty, Declan: > >>> On 01/08/2018 2:18 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote: > >>>> When a bonding port is stopped also stop and deactivate all slaves. > >>>> Otherwise slaves will be still listed as active. > >>>> > >>>> Fixes: 69bce062132b ("net/bonding: do not clear active slave count") > >>>> Cc: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Declan Doherty <[email protected]> > >> > >> Waiting for opinion from the other bonding maintainer (Chas) > >> who started to review and has some doubts. > >> > > > > The slaves being listed as active is not a bug. If the slaves are not > > deactivated, then they should be considered activated. Previously, > > stopping the bonding PMD just reset the active slave count. That's > > not the right way to deactivate slaves. This was fixed by 69bce062132b. > > > > This patch is new behavior of explicitly deactivating the slaves when > > the bonding PMD is stopped. > > > > As I mentioned, I think this makes life difficult for those of us using > > an external state machine. However, that should probably be fixed > > differently then. > > > > > >> > >> Chas, please do you agree with Declan's ack? > >> > >> > >> > > Change the Fixes line. > > Hi Chas, > > Are you OK with the rest of the patch if Fixes line fixed? > If already have a proposed fixes line I can fix it while merging. > Yes, the rest of the patch is fine as long as the Fixes is correct. Try this: Fixes: 2efb58cbab6e ("bond: new link bonding library") And it's really new behavior. Perhaps Fixes: isn't quite right. The current code works fine with activated slaves existing outside of the stop/star. > > Thanks, > ferruh >
