On 2/28/11 10:37 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:54:29PM CET, joe.eykholt@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 2/28/11 9:15 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Jiri Pirko<jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Check for IFF_BONDING as this flag is set-up for all bonding devices.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko<jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 4 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
index 9f9600b..67714a4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
@@ -285,9 +285,7 @@ static int fcoe_interface_setup(struct fcoe_interface *fcoe,
}
/* Do not support for bonding device */
- if ((netdev->priv_flags& IFF_MASTER_ALB) ||
- (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE) ||
- (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_MASTER_8023AD)) {
+ if (netdev->priv_flags& IFF_BONDING) {
FCOE_NETDEV_DBG(netdev, "Bonded interfaces not supported\n");
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}
Based on past discussions, I believe the intent of the code is
to permit FCOE over bonding only for active-backup mode, and possibly
for -xor/-rr as well.
I'm not sure if the slave or the master is what's being tested
here, so I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. I suspect it's the
master, as I recall discussion of one configuration involving
active-backup mode balancing FCOE traffic over both the active and
inactive slaves. FCOE uses the "orig_dev" logic in __netif_receive_skb
to have the packets delivered even on the nominally inactive slave.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@xxxxxxxxxx
Right. That was the intent. It should work on the physical dev, but probably
not on the master of the bond.
If you have a master/slave bond for IPv4 between eth1 and eth2, say,
and they are going to two different DCE (FCoE) switches, presumably on
different VSANs but with ultimate access to the same disks,
then you want to split the FCoE traffic in active/active
mode using separate FCoE instances on eth1 and eth2 even though IP
is using active/standby on bond0. This should work. But, putting fcoe
on bond0 isn't going to do what you want.
However, it seems like the check above shouldn't be checking
IFF_SLAVE_INACTIVE. I can't test this.
OK. So I guess the right check should be for:
(netdev->priv_flags& IFF_BONDING&& netdev->flags& IFF_MASTER)
I think that's OK. How about just checking for MASTER?
When is MASTER going to be set without BONDING?
Otherwise I'd add some parens or I might code this as:
if ((netdev->priv_flags & (IFF_BONDING | IFF_MASTER)) ==
(IFF_BONDING | IFF_MASTER))
Which is less clear, I know, but used to generate better code.
The compiler might generate the same code these days.
Not that this is performance-critical or anything.
This would disable adding all bond devices (like bond0 etc) and allows
to use enslaved physdevs.
Note that checking for mode is irrelevant here. Mode could be easily
changed later without fcoe knowing that.
Jirka
Cheers,
Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
