Dan Williams wrote:
[...]
>You'll probably say "aim for the 75% case" or something like that,
>which is fine, but then you're depending on your 75% case to be (a)
>single AP, (b) never move (eg, only bond wifi + ethernet), (c) little
>radio interference. I'm not sure I'd buy that. If I've put wo
On 08/16/2017 08:18 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:36 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
On 08/16/2017 07:11 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 14:31 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Dan Williams
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:22:41 -0500
My biggest suggestion is that perhaps
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:36 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 08/16/2017 07:11 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 14:31 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Dan Williams
> > > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:22:41 -0500
> > >
> > > > My biggest suggestion is that perhaps bonding should gro
From: Dan Williams
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:11:47 -0500
> You'll probably say "aim for the 75% case" or something like that,
> which is fine, but then you're depending on your 75% case to be (a)
> single AP, (b) never move (eg, only bond wifi + ethernet), (c) little
> radio interference. I'm no
On 08/16/2017 07:11 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 14:31 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Dan Williams
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:22:41 -0500
My biggest suggestion is that perhaps bonding should grow
hysteresis
for link speeds. Since WiFi can change speed every packet, you
pr
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 14:31 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Dan Williams
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:22:41 -0500
>
> > My biggest suggestion is that perhaps bonding should grow
> hysteresis
> > for link speeds. Since WiFi can change speed every packet, you
> probably
> > don't want the bond ch
From: Dan Williams
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:22:41 -0500
> My biggest suggestion is that perhaps bonding should grow hysteresis
> for link speeds. Since WiFi can change speed every packet, you probably
> don't want the bond characteristics changing every couple seconds just
> in case your WiFi li
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 14:44 -0600, James Feeney wrote:
> On 08/13/2017 11:42 AM, Andreas Born wrote:
> > On a side note I would recommend some of my own reading to you
> > about
> > patch submission in general [1] and on netdev specifically [2].
>
> Mmm - [2] and [3], I suspect. Thanks Andreas.
From: James Feeney
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:44:27 -0600
> On 08/13/2017 11:42 AM, Andreas Born wrote:
>> On a side note I would recommend some of my own reading to you about
>> patch submission in general [1] and on netdev specifically [2].
>
> Mmm - [2] and [3], I suspect. Thanks Andreas. I'
On 08/13/2017 11:42 AM, Andreas Born wrote:
> On a side note I would recommend some of my own reading to you about
> patch submission in general [1] and on netdev specifically [2].
Mmm - [2] and [3], I suspect. Thanks Andreas. I'll be studying those. Yeah,
I'm still learning what is needed and
2017-08-12 21:30 GMT+02:00 James Feeney :
>
>
> Andreas patch failed to address the continuous, *10-times per second* warning
> which will "spam" the log file, sometimes the console, whenever the test
> fails:
> if (bond_update_speed_duplex(slave) && bond_needs_speed_duplex(bond)) {...}
> which t
Hey Kalle
Still, a problem:
On 08/12/2017 01:35 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Kalle Valo writes:
>
>> Andreas Born writes:
>>
>>> Earlier today I submitted the patch (bonding: require speed/duplex
>>> only for 802.3ad, alb and tlb) [2] that only partially reverts what is
>>> a regression following m
Kalle Valo writes:
> Andreas Born writes:
>
>> Earlier today I submitted the patch (bonding: require speed/duplex
>> only for 802.3ad, alb and tlb) [2] that only partially reverts what is
>> a regression following my aforementioned logic. This seems to me like
>> the best solution in the short t
Andreas Born writes:
> Earlier today I submitted the patch (bonding: require speed/duplex
> only for 802.3ad, alb and tlb) [2] that only partially reverts what is
> a regression following my aforementioned logic. This seems to me like
> the best solution in the short term since it should satisfy
Hi everyone,
2017-08-10 14:43 GMT+02:00 Arend van Spriel :
>
>
> On 10-08-17 07:39, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mahesh and Andy,
>>
>> James Feeney reported that there's a serious regression in bonding
>> module since v4.12, it doesn't work with wireless drivers anymore as
>> wireless drivers don't
On 10-08-17 07:39, Kalle Valo wrote:
Hi Mahesh and Andy,
James Feeney reported that there's a serious regression in bonding
module since v4.12, it doesn't work with wireless drivers anymore as
wireless drivers don't report the link speed via ethtool:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?i
Hi Mahesh and Andy,
James Feeney reported that there's a serious regression in bonding
module since v4.12, it doesn't work with wireless drivers anymore as
wireless drivers don't report the link speed via ethtool:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196547
In the bug report it's said tha
17 matches
Mail list logo
