On 5/31/2018 5:13 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>
>
> On 5/31/2018 4:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 5/31/2018 4:34 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2018 3:34 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>
>>> I can see you just prefix "fix" to the title without updating it :)
>>>
>>> What about following one:
>>> "net/bonding: fix slave add for mode 4" ?
> Great, I'll use it for v3 :)
>
>>>
>>>> Add a call to rte_eth_link_get_nowait on every slave to update
>>>> the internal link status struct. Otherwise slave add will fail
>>>> for mode 4 if the ports are all stopped but only one of them checked.
>>> What is the link related expectation from slaves in mode 4?
> To be identical across all ports
>>>
>>> What does "if the ports are all stopped but only one of them checked" mean,
>>> why
>>> checking only one of them?
> This is the behavior of testpmd, stop getting the link status after the
> first down port; but this should not affect bonding, so there is no need
> to update testpmd.
I see, when this link updating happens in this bonding issue context? When
bonding device created?
Should we update testpmd behavior too?
>
>>>
>>>> Fixes: b77d21cc2364 ("ethdev: add link status get/set helper functions")
>>>> Bugzilla entry: https://dpdk.org/tracker/show_bug.cgi?id=52
>> Bugzilla ID: 52
>>
>> btw, can you please send new version as reply to previous version?
> Sure.
>
>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2: add fix and Bugzilla references
>>>>
>>>> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
>>>> index d558df8..cad08b9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
>>>> @@ -296,6 +296,8 @@ __eth_bond_slave_add_lock_free(uint16_t
>>>> bonded_port_id, uint16_t slave_port_id)
>>>> return -1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + rte_eth_link_get_nowait(slave_port_id, &link_props);
>>>> +
>>> The error seems in link_properties_valid(), does it make sense to get link
>>> info
>>> inside that function before link checks?
> Not really, as one might expect that link_properties_valid will only
> test the struct rte_eth_link *slave_link argument, not update it.
Fair enough, I just thought to be sure the tested link is up to date, but that
function seems only called by __eth_bond_slave_add_lock_free() which you are
updating, so this is ok.
>
>>>
>>>> slave_add(internals, slave_eth_dev);
>>>>
>>>> /* We need to store slaves reta_size to be able to synchronize RETA for
>>>> all
>>>>
>
