On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 15:54 -0700, Mahesh Bandewar wrote: > >> > + if (bond->params.xmit_policy == BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 && >> > + skb->l4_hash) >> if (ENCAP34 || LAYER34) && l4_hash) may be? > > Hmm, traditional BOND_XMIT_POLICY_LAYER34 did not a full flow bisection > (tunnel awareness added in commit > 32819dc1834866cb9547cb75f81af9edd58d33cd bonding: modify the old and add > new xmit hash policies) > > This could radically change some setups and behavior. > > BOND_XMIT_POLICY_ENCAP34 looks a better fit to me. > Agreed, this will change flow distribution for LAYER34 policy but then loose out on calculating hash per packet which I think is unnecessary.
This elimination of hash calculation is a good step but I'm feeling that it's somehow tied to ENCAP policy which is actually orthogonal and should be applied to LAYER34 also. However if that change in the behavior for LAYER34 is considered too drastic then I'm perfectly fine tying it to ENCAP34 policy. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
