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;
Message-ID: <5718ba71a8755040f61ed7b2f688b1067ca56594.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when
 updelay is nonzero
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@gmail.com>
Cc:     Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@gmail.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:45:35 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1fe036eb-5207-eccd-0cb3-aa22f5d130ce@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1668800711.git.jtoppins@redhat.com>
         <cb89b92af89973ee049a696c362b4a2abfdd9b82.1668800711.git.jtoppins@redhat.com>
         <38fbc36783d583f805f30fb3a55a8a87f67b59ac.camel@redhat.com>
         <1fe036eb-5207-eccd-0cb3-aa22f5d130ce@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-2.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 08:36 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> On 11/22/22 05:59, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:30 -0500, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > > Before this change when a bond in mode 2 lost link, all of its slaves
> > > lost link, the bonding device would never recover even after the
> > > expiration of updelay. This change removes the updelay when the bond
> > > currently has no usable links. Conforming to bonding.txt section 13.1
> > > paragraph 4.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Why are you targeting net-next? This looks like something suitable to
> > the -net tree to me. If, so could you please include a Fixes tag?
> > 
> > Note that we can add new self-tests even via the -net tree.
> > 
> 
> I could not find a reasonable fixes tag for this, hence why I targeted 
> the net-next tree.

When in doubt I think it's preferrable to point out a commit surely
affected by the issue - even if that is possibly not the one
introducing the issue - than no Fixes as all. The lack of tag will make
more difficult the work for stable teams.

In this specific case I think that:

Fixes: 41f891004063 ("bonding: ignore updelay param when there is no active slave")

should be ok, WDYT? if you agree would you mind repost for -net?

Thanks,

Paolo