On 03/02/16 11:28, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:18:34PM -0500, Eric Kinzie wrote: >> On Fri Dec 04 19:36:09 +0100 2015, Andriy Berestovskyy wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> I'm not quite sure if we can support less TX queues on a slave that easy: >>> >>>> queue_id = bond_slave_txqid(internals, i, bd_tx_q->queue_id); >>>> num_tx_slave = rte_eth_tx_burst(slaves[i], queue_id, >>>> slave_bufs[i], slave_nb_pkts[i]); >>> >>> It seems that two different lcores might end up writing to the same >>> slave queue at the same time, isn't it? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andriy >> >> Andriy, I think you're probably right about this. Perhaps it should >> instead refuse to add or refuse to activate a slave with too few >> tx queues. Could probably fix this with another layer of buffering >> so that an lcore with a valid tx queue could pick up the mbufs later, >> but this doesn't seem very appealing. >> >> Eric >> > Hi Eric, Stephen, Declan, > > all patches of the set apart from this one and the next (nos 6 & 7) have no > comments and have been acked. Is there a resolution on these two patches, so > they > can be acked and merged? > > Regards, > /Bruce >
Hey Bruce, Eric, Stephen, sorry about leaving this patchset hanging around. Can you apply patches 1-5 & patch 8 in this patch set. I've reviewed and acked all of those patches and I believe they are good tof go. I need to give further feedback on patches 6 and 7, as I would like to avoid bring further rte_ring buffering into the bonded device if possible and I think this should be possible but I haven't had time to prototype any alternatives but that shouldn't stop the other patches being applied. Thanks Declan
