Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6 - bisected - twice

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jay Vosburgh
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 11:51 am

Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> wrote:


	Perhaps.

	I don't have a forcedeth to test with, and as you surmised, I
was unable to reproduce the problem with other chipsets (tg3 or e1000).

	However, I did find another bug I introduced during the "mii
refactor" patch that you mentioned as being the original source of the
problem.  That bug will cause 802.3ad to not notice speed changes.

	Could you test the patch below on your 2.6.68.7 and/or 2.6.27.19
and see if it resolves your problem (without the forcedeth patch)?

	-J

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 2c96b93..ad81474 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -3545,11 +3545,27 @@ static int bond_slave_netdev_event(unsigned long event, struct net_device *slave
 		}
 		break;
 	case NETDEV_CHANGE:
-		/*
-		 * TODO: is this what we get if somebody
-		 * sets up a hierarchical bond, then rmmod's
-		 * one of the slave bonding devices?
-		 */
+		if (bond->params.mode == BOND_MODE_8023AD ||
+		    bond_is_lb(bond)) {
+			struct slave *slave;
+
+			slave = bond_get_slave_by_dev(bond, slave_dev);
+			if (slave) {
+				u16 old_speed = slave->speed;
+				u16 old_duplex = slave->duplex;
+
+				bond_update_speed_duplex(slave);
+
+				if (bond_is_lb(bond))
+					break;
+
+				if (old_speed != slave->speed)
+					bond_3ad_adapter_speed_changed(slave);
+				if (old_duplex != slave->duplex)
+					bond_3ad_adapter_duplex_changed(slave);
+			}
+		}
+
 		break;
 	case NETDEV_DOWN:
 		/*


---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Jesper Krogh, (Sun Nov 16, 2:41 am)
Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Jay Vosburgh, (Mon Nov 17, 4:45 pm)
Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Jesper Krogh, (Tue Nov 18, 1:24 pm)
Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Jesper Krogh, (Tue Nov 18, 1:28 pm)
Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Jay Vosburgh, (Tue Nov 18, 1:53 pm)
Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Jesper Krogh, (Wed Nov 19, 12:53 am)
Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Jesper Krogh, (Wed Nov 19, 3:01 am)
RE: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6, Brandeburg, Jesse, (Mon Dec 8, 1:42 pm)
Re: Regression in bonding between 2.6.26.8 and 2.6.27.6 - ..., Jay Vosburgh, (Thu Mar 5, 11:51 am)