RE: [PATCH 2.6.23.12] net/bonding: option to specify initial bond interface number

2008-01-03 Thread Jari Takkala
On Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:04, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >> In our startup scripts we need to be able to ensure that the >> interface name is consistent across reboots. Sometimes bond1 may be >> brought up before bond0 and it may have different options (requiring >> a different instance of the bond

RE: [PATCH 2.6.23.12] net/bonding: option to specify initial bond interface number

2008-01-03 Thread Jari Takkala
On Wednesday, January 02, 2008 16:56, Randy Dunlap wrote: > You could (should) make be unsigned int and then use > module_param(ifnum, uint, 0); and then ... > > then this block is mostly useless since ifnum cannot be < 0. > And how could it ever be > INT_MAX (when ifnum was an int)? > > If is

RE: [PATCH 2.6.23.12] net/bonding: option to specify initial bond interface number

2008-01-03 Thread Jari Takkala
On Wednesday, January 02, 2008 17:24, Jay Vosburgh wrote: > What advantage does this have over: > > # echo +bond5 > /sys/class/net/bonding_masters > > which will create a new bonding master for the already-loaded driver? > The advantage is that you can load multiple instances of the

[PATCH 2.6.23.12] net/bonding: option to specify initial bond interface number

2008-01-02 Thread Jari Takkala
'modprobe -o bond5 bonding ifnum=5'. It also works with the max_bonds option. Signed-off-by: Jari Takkala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff -ruN linux-2.6.23.12.orig/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c linux-2.6.23.12/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c --- linux-2.6.23.12.orig/drivers/net/bon

Re: [patch 06/17] neighbour.c, pneigh_get_next() skips published entry

2006-06-09 Thread Jari Takkala
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Herbert Xu wrote: > Could you post an exact sequence of commands that reproduces the bug? > That would help us in verifying your fix. > Publish a large number of ARP entries (greater than 10 required on my system): 'arp -Ds pub' View output of /proc/net/arp: 'dd if=/proc

Re: [patch 06/17] neighbour.c, pneigh_get_next() skips published entry

2006-06-08 Thread Jari Takkala
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, David Miller wrote: > This patch doesn't make any sense, I've been over it a few times. > > The seqfile layer should take care of that user buffering issue transparently as > long as we implement the interface callbacks properly. > > Even if something needs to be fixed in the

[PATCH] neighbour.c, pneigh_get_next() skips published entry

2006-05-11 Thread Jari Takkala
. View the output, one entry will be missing. Please review and commit if acceptable. Signed-off-by: Jari Takkala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- linux-2.6.16.15.orig/net/core/neighbour.c 2006-05-09 15:53:30.0 -0400 +++ linux-2.6.16.15/net/core/neighbour.c2006-05-10 16:06:40