From: Greg KH on
2.6.27-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.


From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko(a)>

commit 41f8910040639eb106b1a5b5301aab79ecde4940 upstream.

Pointed out by Sean E. Millichamp.

Quote from Documentation/networking/bonding.txt:
"Note that when a bonding interface has no active links, the
driver will immediately reuse the first link that goes up, even if the
updelay parameter has been specified (the updelay is ignored in this
case). If there are slave interfaces waiting for the updelay timeout
to expire, the interface that first went into that state will be
immediately reused. This reduces down time of the network if the
value of updelay has been overestimated, and since this occurs only in
cases with no connectivity, there is no additional penalty for
ignoring the updelay."

This patch actually changes the behaviour in this way.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jpirko(a)>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem(a)>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare(a)>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)>

drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -2228,6 +2228,9 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bo
struct slave *slave;
int i, link_state, commit = 0;
+ bool ignore_updelay;
+ ignore_updelay = !bond->curr_active_slave ? true : false;

bond_for_each_slave(bond, slave, i) {
slave->new_link = BOND_LINK_NOCHANGE;
@@ -2292,6 +2295,7 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bo
": %s: link status up for "
"interface %s, enabling it in %d ms.\n",
bond->dev->name, slave->dev->name,
+ ignore_updelay ? 0 :
bond->params.updelay *
@@ -2310,9 +2314,13 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bo

+ if (ignore_updelay)
+ slave->delay = 0;
if (slave->delay <= 0) {
slave->new_link = BOND_LINK_UP;
+ ignore_updelay = false;

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at