[ofa-general] Re: Re: [RFC] [PATCH v3] IB/ipoib: Add bonding support to IPoIB

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

> Quoting Moni Shoua <monisonlists at gmail.com>:
> Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] [PATCH v3] IB/ipoib: Add bonding support to?IPoIB
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> With the current solution it is still unsafe to unload ib_ipoib before bonding but
> >> I tend to agree with Michael and my opinion now is that this should be fixed in the
> >> upper layer (i.e. bonding).
> > 
> > This looks simple. Will we get to see the patch to core bonding code as well
> > soon? I guess bonding support in OFED will need to be patched somehow?
> > 
> Sure. I am working on it now (making ib_ipoib safer to remove before bonding
> does) and I would be happy to share when I'm
> done.  However, I think that this is a separate issue and should not prevent
> from this patch to get in.  Don't you agree?

There's no rush I guess - Roland's on vacation so we have time to
review how everything works together.

> BTW: It is often claimed to module unload is unsafe by definition and is not 
> a production issue. Doesn't this claim make the unload issue "less critical"?

I know our users depend on module unload being stable.
Module unload remains the simplest way to test hotplug,
so bugs there might hide real issues.

Where does the claim that module unload is unsafe by definition
come from? Weren't the races solved in 2.6 with the new in-kernel
loader?

-- 
MST