On 11/19/19 3:18 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 11/19/2019 9:03 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>> Bonding device should control bonded devices configuration.
>>
>> Also avoid usage of slave's data->dev_conf.
>>
>> Fixes: 2efb58cbab6e ("bond: new link bonding library")
>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>> index 707a0f3cdd..4f0e83205d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>> @@ -1679,6 +1679,7 @@ int
>> slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
>> struct rte_eth_dev *slave_eth_dev)
>> {
>> + struct rte_eth_conf dev_conf;
>> struct bond_rx_queue *bd_rx_q;
>> struct bond_tx_queue *bd_tx_q;
>> uint16_t nb_rx_queues;
>> @@ -1693,34 +1694,34 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
>> /* Stop slave */
>> rte_eth_dev_stop(slave_eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>
>> + memset(&dev_conf, 0, sizeof(dev_conf));
>> +
>> /* Enable interrupts on slave device if supported */
>> if (slave_eth_dev->data->dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC)
>> - slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc = 1;
>> + dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc = 1;
> I assume the original intention is making incremental changes to the existing
> slave configuration, if so we should copy the 'slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf'
> to
> 'dev_conf' before start updating it.
The problem is that I don't understand how incremental changes
happen. It simply looks wrong or I don't understand something.
It looks like it is the only place in bonding where slave configuration
is done.
