On 4/16/2018 8:09 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Chas > > From: Chas Williams, Monday, April 16, 2018 7:44 PM >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:06 AM, Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi Chas >>> >>> From: Chas Williams, Wednesday, February 14, 2018 12:55 AM >>>> If a link is carrier down and using autonegotiation, then the PMD may >>>> not have detected a speed yet. In this case the best we can do is >>>> ignore the link speed and duplex since they aren't valid. >>> >>> Ok for this. >>> >>>> To be completely correct, there >>>> should be additional checks to prevent a slave that negotiates a >>>> different speed from being activated. >>> >>> Looks like every changing in the link properties should cause LSC interrupt. >>> In the bonding LCS interrupt you could handle and to deactivate the device. >>> Also you should deal with the case of the first slave, what is happen if the >> first slave has invalid link properties? >>> How can you know that the speed\duplex_mode is invalid? >>> Are we sure LACP mode can run with auto negotiation? >> >> Yes, I am pretty sure bonding doesn't get this right when the interfaces >> aren't link up. While what bonding is doing is likely wrong, it doesn't mean >> that the behavior of the PMDs are correct in leaving the link_status unset >> until the first LSC interrupt. >> >> I plan to get around to looking at this bonding problem in a little bit. >> Luckily it >> seems that we always tend to get matched links and even if bonding is >> advertising the wrong aggregate speed and duplex we are find for now. It >> wouldn't pass close inspection by a protocol analyzer though. >> > > So, Are you going to fix it, > If no, I think you can open a bug in Bugzilla.
Hi Matan, Chas, What is the latest status of the patch? And I guess there is another issue as well discussed here, is it still valid? Thanks, ferruh
