From: Alex Kiselev
> Hi Matan.
>
> > Hi Alex
>
> > Please see comments below.
>
>
> >> +
> >> + ret = rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_add(slave_port_id, mac_addr, 0);
> >> + if (ret < 0) {
> >> + /* rollback */
> >> + for (i--; i > 0; i--)
> >> +
>
> > In case of failure in the first mac address(i=1) you are going to
> > remove the default mac address(i=0) from the slave.
> In that case i will be incremented first and will be equal to 0, then for
> condition
> will fail and the loop body will not be executed.
>
Yes, my mistake.
>
> >> rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_remove(slave_port_id,
> >> + &bonded_eth_dev->data-
> >> >mac_addrs[i]);
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Remove additional MAC addresses from the slave */ int
> >> +slave_remove_mac_addresses(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
> >> + uint16_t slave_port_id) {
> >> + int i, ret = 0;
> >> + struct ether_addr *mac_addr;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 1; i < BOND_MAX_MAC_ADDRS; i++) {
> >> + mac_addr = &bonded_eth_dev->data->mac_addrs[i];
> >> + if (is_same_ether_addr(mac_addr, &null_mac_addr))
> >> + break;
> >> +
> >> + ret = rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_remove(slave_port_id,
> >> mac_addr);
> >> + }
>
> > I suggest to return the first error, also in case of all success with
> > last failure, the code here wrongly returns success.
> Yeah, you are right. I'll fix it.
>
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < internals->slave_count; i++) {
> >> + ret = rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_add(internals->slaves[i].port_id,
> >> + mac_addr, vmdq);
> >> + if (ret < 0) {
> >> + /* rollback */
> >> + for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
>
> > In case of failure in the first slave(i=0) you are going probably to get
> > memory
> error (i=-1).
> The same logic apply here. When i ==-1 the condition will fail and the loop
> body
> will not be executed;
Yes, my mistake.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alex
