Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: attempt to better support longer hw addresses

2017-04-06 Thread Jarod Wilson
On 2017-04-05 9:45 PM, David Miller wrote: From: Jarod Wilson Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:32:42 -0400 ... Applied, but: +static inline void bond_hw_addr_copy(u8 *dst, const u8 *src, unsigned int len) +{ + if (len == ETH_ALEN) { + ether_addr_copy(dst, src); + r

Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: attempt to better support longer hw addresses

2017-04-05 Thread David Miller
From: Jarod Wilson Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:32:42 -0400 > People are using bonding over Infiniband IPoIB connections, and who knows > what else. Infiniband has a hardware address length of 20 octets > (INFINIBAND_ALEN), and the network core defines a MAX_ADDR_LEN of 32. > Various places in the b

[PATCH net-next] bonding: attempt to better support longer hw addresses

2017-04-04 Thread Jarod Wilson
People are using bonding over Infiniband IPoIB connections, and who knows what else. Infiniband has a hardware address length of 20 octets (INFINIBAND_ALEN), and the network core defines a MAX_ADDR_LEN of 32. Various places in the bonding code are currently hard-wired to 6 octets (ETH_ALEN), such a