On 6/13/2018 5:10 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 2/12/2018 6:26 PM, Chas Williams wrote: >> It's not clear to me that link_properties_valid() is even correct. Nothing >> prevents an adapter from later negotiating a lower speed and would fail this >> test. If both adapters are set to autoneg, that should be sufficient but >> nothing enforces the speed match after the slaves are configured. So what is >> the point of this check? > > Reminder of this patch. > > This is waiting in the backlog for a long time. It is not even clear if the > patch is still valid or not. > > Also based on missing response to Chas' clarification request, I am for > dropping/rejecting the patch. > > @Declan, @Radu please chime in if this patch is required/valid.
Marked as rejected. > >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net >> <mailto:tho...@monjalon.net>> wrote: >> >> 17/01/2018 17:02, Ferruh Yigit: >> > On 11/29/2017 3:42 PM, Tomasz Kulasek wrote: >> > > Some devices needs more time to initialize and bring interface up. >> When >> > > link is down the link properties are not valid, e.g. link_speed is >> > > reported as 0 and this is not a valid speed for slave as well as for >> whole >> > > bonding. >> > > >> > > During NIC (and bonding) initialization there's concurrency between >> > > updating link status and adding slave to the bonding. >> > > >> > > This patch: >> > > >> > > - adds delay before configuring bonding (if link is down) to be >> sure that >> > > link status of new slave is valid, >> > > - propagates information about link status from first slave with >> link up >> > > instead of first slave at all, to be sure that link speed is >> valid. >> > > >> > > Fixes: 6abd94d72ab5 ("net/bonding: fix check slaves link properties") >> > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Kulasek <tomaszx.kula...@intel.com >> <mailto:tomaszx.kula...@intel.com>> >> > > --- >> > > v2 changes: >> > > - Checkpatch warnings, >> > > - Improved code style >> > Hi Declan, >> > >> > Any comment on this patch? >> >> Any news? >> >> >> >
