[ofa-general] Re: [RFC] [PATCH v2] IB/ipoib: Add bonding support to IPoIB

[Moni Shoua]

Hi,
I took some comments from this discussion and I'll refer to them when I write a new version for this patch.
I'll post it soon.

thanks

 -MoniS

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

>> I got the assumption about neighbours living in one of these 2 tables from
>> observation and code reading.  I preferred that that on keeping track of all
>> ipoib_neighs and putting them in a list. However, I could do that instead of
>> neigh_table scanning. Do you think it's better?
> 
> If some neighbours are not on any tables, it seems using our own lists
> (e.g. lists we have in ipoib_path) is the only option, no?
OK, I see what you mean. I'll use my own list to keep track about ipoib_neighs.

>>>> The only way I found to avoid this (for now) is to check skb headroom in
>>>> ipoib_hard_header. I guess that this safety check doesn't harm regular IPoIB 
>>>> operation and it seems to solve my problem. However, I would be happy to hear what
>>>> others think of this last issue.
>>> As I said, this seems to indicate a problem in the bonding code.
>>> But what will happen after you error out in ipoib_hard_header?
>>> Is the packet dropped? What might break as a result?

Michael, your tip about hard_header_len helped. i found what was wrong in the bonding code.
Now the skb_under_panic() issue is gone. 
I will remove the part of checking for headroom from the patch.
Thanks

>