Sorry -- ignore my previous email. I was looking at it from the wrong perspective. I was thinking of what happens in active activate_slave, which calls bond_mode_8023ad_activate_slave *before* adding to the active_slaves[] array.
In this case, the slaves are already active, since we're iterating over the active slave list. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Kyle Larose <klar...@sandvine.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Lilijun (Jerry) > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 2:16 AM > > To: dev@dpdk.org; tomaszx.kula...@intel.com > > Cc: Zhang, Jerry; Wanghanlin > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/bonding: fix bond 8023ad mode enable > > using wrong index > > > > ... > > > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c > > @@ -1159,7 +1159,7 @@ > > uint8_t i; > > > > for (i = 0; i < internals->active_slave_count; i++) > > - bond_mode_8023ad_activate_slave(bond_dev, i); > > + bond_mode_8023ad_activate_slave(bond_dev, internals- > > >active_slaves[i]); > > > > return 0; > > } > > > > > I don't think active_slaves is correct here. The slave is not yet active, > so it may not be in that array yet. > Should we instead use internals->slaves[i].port_id? > > > >
