Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:40:51PM CET, niko...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 12/01/2015 02:48 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>
>>
>> Let netdev notifier listeners know about link and slave state change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> include/net/bonding.h | 7 +++++++
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index c9943fc..e153a87 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -1315,6 +1315,16 @@ void bond_queue_slave_event(struct slave *slave)
>> queue_delayed_work(slave->bond->wq, &nnw->work, 0);
>> }
>>
>> +void bond_lower_state_changed(struct slave *slave)
>> +{
>> + struct netdev_lag_lower_state_info info;
>> +
>> + info.link_up = slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP ||
>> + slave->link == BOND_LINK_FAIL;
>> + info.tx_enabled = bond_is_active_slave(slave);
>> + netdev_lower_state_changed(slave->dev, &info);
>> +}
>> +
>
>Hmm, but does this tell the listeners what changed ? I think it just
>sends the current slave state and the listener has to decide what has
>changed.
>For example, right now it's possible for multiple identical events to
>be sent (e.g. set_inactive_flags called two times on release, once because
>of curr_active_slave change and second because of your set), the listeners
>should be able to cope with that. For this same example I see that the mlxsw
>will call mlxsw_sp_port_lag_changed() two times with the same values in that
>case. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, just noting it. :-)
Yes, I'm aware of that. I think it is okay. Drivers know about this will
happen and should be prepared.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
