On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:25:04AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:11 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:50:38AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:48 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:33 +0
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:11 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:50:38AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:48 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:33 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is during the pr
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:50:38AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:48 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:33 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, it is during the process of removing the final slave. The
> > > reproducer looks like this:
> > >
> > >
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 09:48 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:33 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it is during the process of removing the final slave. The
> > reproducer looks like this:
> >
> > ping remote_ip_over_bonding_interface &
> > while 1; do
> > ifdown bond
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:33 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> Yes, it is during the process of removing the final slave. The
> reproducer looks like this:
>
> ping remote_ip_over_bonding_interface &
> while 1; do
> ifdown bond0
> ifup bond0
> done
Honestly, I would suspect the problem her
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:27:38AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 20:52 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:46:34AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 00:50 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > so maybe @ least for the time bei
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 20:52 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:46:34AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 00:50 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > >
> > > so maybe @ least for the time being, we should be picking Hong's
> > > patch
> > > with proper change log a
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 20:52 +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:46:34AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 00:50 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > > so maybe @ least for the time being, we should be picking Hong's patch
> > > with proper change log and without the gia
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:46:34AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 00:50 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > so maybe @ least for the time being, we should be picking Hong's patch
> > with proper change log and without the giant stack dump till we have
> > something better. If you agree,
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 00:50 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> so maybe @ least for the time being, we should be picking Hong's patch
> with proper change log and without the giant stack dump till we have
> something better. If you agree, can you do the re-write of the change
> log?
I think that Hong's pa
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 17:39 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> If got you right, Paolo's commit introduced a regression, so we (I
>> guess you and Paolo) need to either solve it or we (community)
>> should consider a revert, please suggest.
> [...]
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 17:39 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Erez Shitrit .il> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Or Gerlitz
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > thanks for the info. Is this bug there since ipoib/bonding day
> > > one (and hence my bug...)
> >
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Erez Shitrit wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> thanks for the info. Is this bug there since ipoib/bonding day one (and
>> hence my bug...)
>> or was indeed introduced later? if later, can you explain how
>> fc791b633515 introduced th
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Erez Shitrit
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Honggang LI wrote:
From: Honggang Li
Minimal hard_header_len set by bond_compu
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Erez Shitrit wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Honggang LI wrote:
>>> From: Honggang Li
>>>
>>> Minimal hard_header_len set by bond_compute_features is ETH_HLEN, which
>>> is smaller than IPOIB_HARD_
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Honggang LI wrote:
>> From: Honggang Li
>>
>> Minimal hard_header_len set by bond_compute_features is ETH_HLEN, which
>> is smaller than IPOIB_HARD_LEN. ipoib_hard_header should check the
>> size of headroom t
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 01:32:59PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Honggang LI wrote:
> > From: Honggang Li
> >
> > Minimal hard_header_len set by bond_compute_features is ETH_HLEN, which
> > is smaller than IPOIB_HARD_LEN. ipoib_hard_header should check the
> > size
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Honggang LI wrote:
> From: Honggang Li
>
> Minimal hard_header_len set by bond_compute_features is ETH_HLEN, which
> is smaller than IPOIB_HARD_LEN. ipoib_hard_header should check the
> size of headroom to avoid skb_under_panic.
sounds terrible, ipoib bonding is
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:55:55PM +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> From: Honggang Li
>
> Minimal hard_header_len set by bond_compute_features is ETH_HLEN, which
> is smaller than IPOIB_HARD_LEN. ipoib_hard_header should check the
> size of headroom to avoid skb_under_panic.
>
> [ 122.871493] ipoib_
From: Honggang Li
Minimal hard_header_len set by bond_compute_features is ETH_HLEN, which
is smaller than IPOIB_HARD_LEN. ipoib_hard_header should check the
size of headroom to avoid skb_under_panic.
[ 122.871493] ipoib_hard_header: skb->head= 8808179d9400, skb->data=
8808179d9420, skb
20 matches
Mail list logo
