On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: > On 01/10/2018 12:47 AM, Cong Wang wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov >> <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: >>> >>> Just for reference - this is identical to the first part of: >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/252891/ >>> >>> I knew this looked familiar. :-) >>> >> >> Yeah, except bonding is not even involved. Unless I misread, >> DaveM rejected it because of bond, which I never touch here. >> >> The refcnt is paired in vlan_vid_{add,del}, and the calls are >> paired in register/unreigster and NETDEV_UP/NETDEV_DOWN >> after this patch. >> > > You should read all of my replies to Dave, specifically the last one where I > describe exactly a memory leak, and IIRC the rejection was not because of the > bonding part but exactly because of this change - the removal of the vlan_id > conditional.
Quote: "If you have the 8021q module available, and you bring a device up, it gets VLAN 0 by default, and if necessary programmed into the HW filters of the device." This is exactly a complain about your bonding check added for NETDEVUP, which is clearly not here. > I'm not arguing about this patch now, I've said what I had to say back then, > I just gave it as a reference in case there's still relevant information in > there. Me neither, I just want to point it out memory leak is real and not even related to bond.
