On 5/31/2018 5:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 5/31/2018 5:13 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
On 5/31/2018 4:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 5/31/2018 4:34 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 5/31/2018 3:34 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
I can see you just prefix "fix" to the title without updating it :)
What about following one:
"net/bonding: fix slave add for mode 4" ?
Great, I'll use it for v3 :)
Add a call to rte_eth_link_get_nowait on every slave to update
the internal link status struct. Otherwise slave add will fail
for mode 4 if the ports are all stopped but only one of them checked.
What is the link related expectation from slaves in mode 4?
To be identical across all ports
What does "if the ports are all stopped but only one of them checked" mean, why
checking only one of them?
This is the behavior of testpmd, stop getting the link status after the
first down port; but this should not affect bonding, so there is no need
to update testpmd.
I see, when this link updating happens in this bonding issue context? When
bonding device created?
Should we update testpmd behavior too?
Yes, I think that stop_port(portid_t pid) may need some rework. I'm not
sure I understand the reason it calls check_all_ports_link_status(), for
example.
Also, check_all_ports_link_status should do what it implies it does,
check all ports, not stop at the first down port.
Fixes: b77d21cc2364 ("ethdev: add link status get/set helper functions")
Bugzilla entry: https://dpdk.org/tracker/show_bug.cgi?id=52
Bugzilla ID: 52
btw, can you please send new version as reply to previous version?
Sure.
Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
---
v2: add fix and Bugzilla references
drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
index d558df8..cad08b9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
@@ -296,6 +296,8 @@ __eth_bond_slave_add_lock_free(uint16_t bonded_port_id,
uint16_t slave_port_id)
return -1;
}
+ rte_eth_link_get_nowait(slave_port_id, &link_props);
+
The error seems in link_properties_valid(), does it make sense to get link info
inside that function before link checks?
Not really, as one might expect that link_properties_valid will only
test the struct rte_eth_link *slave_link argument, not update it.
Fair enough, I just thought to be sure the tested link is up to date, but that
function seems only called by __eth_bond_slave_add_lock_free() which you are
updating, so this is ok.
slave_add(internals, slave_eth_dev);
/* We need to store slaves reta_size to be able to synchronize RETA for all
