From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D083A0C4E;
	Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:39:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A528411FE;
	Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:39:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BC04118E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:39:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dggeme756-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53])
 by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HZpTg3L6Hz8tqw;
 Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:38:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.67.103.128] (10.67.103.128) by
 dggeme756-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id
 15.1.2308.15; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:39:46 +0800
From: "Min Hu (Connor)" <humin29@huawei.com>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
CC: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>, Ferruh Yigit
 <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, David
 Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
References: <4de1abc6-69ea-2fb8-19bf-1a2ab480cbd8@huawei.com>
 <a9b909db-8530-5c6c-80ba-3a4b55d698a0@huawei.com>
 <6cd232ec-3683-6774-38b1-c26230d989c9@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <a26d12fc-01d9-d818-c4a5-d0da25d7fee2@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:39:46 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6cd232ec-3683-6774-38b1-c26230d989c9@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.67.103.128]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To
 dggeme756-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.102)
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question about bonding port promiscuous
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi, David,
	how about your opinion ?

在 2021/10/21 20:58, Min Hu (Connor) 写道:
> Hi, Ferruh, Thomas,
>      any comments?
> 
> 在 2021/10/19 19:52, Min Hu (Connor) 写道:
>> Hi, anyone could give me a reply? thanks.
>>
>> 在 2021/10/14 10:13, Min Hu (Connor) 写道:
>>> Hi, Declan Doherty,
>>>      In function "bond_ethdev_promiscuous_disable",
>>> for "ROUND ROBIN","BALANCE","BROADCAST","8023AD" mode, Promiscuous mode
>>> is propagated to all slaves.
>>>
>>> While for "ACTIVE_BACKUP", "TLB", "ALB", promiscuous mode is 
>>> propagated only to primary slave.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> The second question, for "ACTIVE_BACKUP", when primary active slave
>>> fails, a different slave becomes active, does the promiscuous mode state
>>> of former primary should be set to the new primary?
>>>
>>>      Hope for your reply.
>>>      Best Wishes.
>>> .
>> .
> .