>-Original Message-
>From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosbu...@canonical.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 4:37 PM
>To: Tantilov, Emil S
>Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; go...@cumulusnetworks.com; zhuyj
>; j...@mellanox.com
>Subject: Re: bonding reports interface
>-Original Message-
>From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosbu...@canonical.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 4:37 PM
>To: Tantilov, Emil S
>Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; go...@cumulusnetworks.com; zhuyj;
>j...@mellanox.com
>Subject: Re: bonding reports interface
reports interface up with 0 Mbps
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
[...]
Thinking about the trace again... Emil: what happens in the
trace before this? Is there ever a call to the ixgbe_get_settings?
Does a NETDEV_UP or NETDEV_CHANGE event ever hit the bond_netdev_event
function?
Emil kindly
On 02/05/2016 08:37 AM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
[...]
Thinking about the trace again... Emil: what happens in the
trace before this? Is there ever a call to the ixgbe_get_settings?
Does a NETDEV_UP or NETDEV_CHANGE event ever hit the bond_netdev_event
function?
>-Original Message-
>From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosbu...@canonical.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 4:37 PM
>To: Tantilov, Emil S
>Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; go...@cumulusnetworks.com; zhuyj;
>j...@mellanox.com
>Subject: Re: bonding reports interface
Jay Vosburgh wrote:
[...]
> Thinking about the trace again... Emil: what happens in the
>trace before this? Is there ever a call to the ixgbe_get_settings?
>Does a NETDEV_UP or NETDEV_CHANGE event ever hit the bond_netdev_event
>function?
Emil kindly sent me the trace offline, and
Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>We are seeing an occasional issue where the bonding driver may report
>interface up with 0 Mbps:
>bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth0, 0 Mbps full duplex
>
>So far in all the failed traces I have collected this happens on
>NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE event:
Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
[...]
>Sure, I'll give this a try, but I'm not sure this check applies in this case
>as you can see from the trace link is up and carrier is on.
From code inspection, I see another possible race, although I'm
not sure if it's relevant for this case. During enslave
>-Original Message-
>From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosbu...@canonical.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:57 PM
>To: Tantilov, Emil S
>Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; go...@cumulusnetworks.com; zhuyj;
>j...@mellanox.com
>Subject: Re: bonding reports interface up wi
On 02/04/2016 01:57 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
We are seeing an occasional issue where the bonding driver may report interface
up with 0 Mbps:
bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth0, 0 Mbps full duplex
So far in all the failed traces I have collected this ha
Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>We are seeing an occasional issue where the bonding driver may report
>interface up with 0 Mbps:
>bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth0, 0 Mbps full duplex
>
>So far in all the failed traces I have collected this happens on
>NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE event:
Hi, Emil
Thanks for your hard work.
With kernel 3.14, NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE is not introduced. my user
still confronted
"bond_mii_monitor: bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth1,
0 Mbps full duplex".
How to explain it?
Would you like to make tests with kernel 3.14?
Thanks a
We are seeing an occasional issue where the bonding driver may report interface
up with 0 Mbps:
bond0: link status definitely up for interface eth0, 0 Mbps full duplex
So far in all the failed traces I have collected this happens on
NETDEV_CHANGELOWERSTATE event:
<...>-20533 [000] 81811.04
13 matches
Mail list logo
