Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:11:25 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To:     Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>
Cc:     j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net,
        davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        dsahern@kernel.org, oliver@neukum.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, huyd12@chinatelecom.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net:bonding:Add support for IPV6 RLB to balance-alb
 mode
Message-ID: <YjLtLdH9gmg7yaNl@nanopsycho>
References: <20220317061521.23985-1-sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220317061521.23985-1-sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>
Precedence: bulk

Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 07:15:21AM CET, sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn wrote:
>This patch is implementing IPV6 RLB for balance-alb mode.
>
>Suggested-by: Hu Yadi <huyd12@chinatelecom.cn>
>Signed-off-by: Sun Shouxin <sunshouxin@chinatelecom.cn>


Could you please reply to my question I asked for v1:
Out of curiosity, what is exactly your usecase? I'm asking because
I don't see any good reason to use RLB/ALB modes. I have to be missing
something.

This is adding a lot of code in bonding that needs to be maintained.
However, if there is no particular need to add it, why would we?

Could you please spell out why exactly do you need this? I'm pretty sure
that in the end well find out, that you really don't need this at all.

Thanks!