Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>slave->duplex is a u8 type so the in bond_info_show_slave() when we
>check "if (slave->duplex == -1)", it's always false.
>
>Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>index b2b9109..b0c5772 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>@@ -560,8 +560,8 @@ static int bond_update_speed_duplex(struct slave *slave)
> u32 slave_speed;
> int res;
>
>- slave->speed = -1;
>- slave->duplex = -1;
>+ slave->speed = SPEED_UNKNOWN;
>+ slave->duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
>
> res = __ethtool_get_settings(slave_dev, &ecmd);
> if (res < 0)
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_procfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_procfs.c
>index 2acf0b0..ad284ba 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_procfs.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_procfs.c
>@@ -158,12 +158,12 @@ static void bond_info_show_slave(struct seq_file *seq,
> seq_printf(seq, "\nSlave Interface: %s\n", slave->dev->name);
> seq_printf(seq, "MII Status: %s\n",
> (slave->link == BOND_LINK_UP) ? "up" : "down");
>- if (slave->speed == -1)
>+ if (slave->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN)
> seq_printf(seq, "Speed: %s\n", "Unknown");
> else
> seq_printf(seq, "Speed: %d Mbps\n", slave->speed);
Since you #define SPEED_UNKNOWN to -1 (below), how does this
actually change anything? Did you mean 0xffff (because struct
ethtool_cmd's speed is a u16)?
Running on a moderately recent net-next (without the very recent
change to bond_update_speed_duplex), I see that bonding indeed doesn't
get the speed or duplex correct after a cable pull:
Slave Interface: eth2
MII Status: down
Speed: 100 Mbps
Duplex: full
so perhaps a rational (unsigned-friendly) SPEED_UNKNOWN and
DUPLEX_UNKNOWN are needed, but I'm not sure how this #define actually
would change any behavior in the bonding case.
>- if (slave->duplex == -1)
>+ if (slave->duplex == DUPLEX_UNKNOWN)
> seq_printf(seq, "Duplex: %s\n", "Unknown");
> else
> seq_printf(seq, "Duplex: %s\n", slave->duplex ? "full" : "half");
This one might "work," but it seems to depend on the fact that
the integral conversion of -1 to an 8 bit unsigned type will be 255
(0xff). I believe that's true (according to the ISO C copy I have
handy), but I'm not sure that kind of implicit assumption should be
built into the code. At least not without some explanation.
-J
>diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h
>index 45f00b6..de33de1 100644
>--- a/include/linux/ethtool.h
>+++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h
>@@ -1097,10 +1097,12 @@ struct ethtool_ops {
> #define SPEED_1000 1000
> #define SPEED_2500 2500
> #define SPEED_10000 10000
>+#define SPEED_UNKNOWN -1
>
> /* Duplex, half or full. */
> #define DUPLEX_HALF 0x00
> #define DUPLEX_FULL 0x01
>+#define DUPLEX_UNKNOWN 0xff
>
> /* Which connector port. */
> #define PORT_TP 0x00
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@xxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
