On 7/15/2021 2:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 14/07/2021 17:00, Jan Viktorin: >>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:26:35 +0300 >>>> Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This matters for the bonding case as well, doesn't it?. >>>>>>>>>> It is not desirable to accidently omit a packet that was >>>>>>>>>> received by primary ingress logic instead of being >>>>>>>>>> redirected into the dedicated queue. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are there any chances that for mlx5 it would be possible >>>>>>>>>> to insert flow rules before calling rte_eth_dev_start? >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, the behaviour should be specified and documented >>>>>>>>>> in DPDK more precisely to avoid such uncertainty in the >>>>>>>>>> future. >>>>>>>>> I agree the documentation should be fixed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Cc Thomas and Ferruh since ethdev documentation should be >>>>> clarified. >>>>> >>>>> It looks like there is no consensus if the patch is a right >>>>> direction or wrong. For me it looks wrong taking all above >>>>> arguments in to account (mainly necessity to be able to insert >>>>> flows before pushing start button which enables the traffic if HW >>>>> supports it). >>>>> >>>>> So, I'm applying first two patches and hold on this one. >> >> Andrew, I believe that it would be helpful to start some new thread >> otherwise we would get lost here :). It seems that we will have few >> more fixes for the bonding driver. Do you prefer an entirely new >> patchset or v2 of this topic? Or any other advise how to proceed? > > This thread is about 3 things: > - bonding issue > - ethdev doc > - mlx5 design > That's too much topics to address in one thread :) > > You may restart the discussion with a doc update > if the stop/start requirement is not clear. > >
Is separate discussions created as follow up?
