From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7C0A0C47; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 04:08:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E82F4067B; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 04:08:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853B64003F for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 04:08:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dggeme756-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Hfpqw0Tw7z90F6; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:08:12 +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, 28 Oct 2021 10:08:15 +0800 To: David Marchand CC: "dev@dpdk.org" References: <84348740-547e-27b0-0553-747bd1e50789@huawei.com> From: "Min Hu (Connor)" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:08:15 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.103.128] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 在 2021/10/27 21:47, David Marchand 写道: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:21 AM Min Hu (Connor) wrote: >> >> Hi, David, >> 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? > >>>From what I remember of the rework I did some time ago, the code was > already doing it and I did not question it. > I guess it mimicks what the Linux kernel bonding driver does. > >> >> 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? > > IOW, setting promisc on the link that becomes primary? > If it is not done, it sounds like a bug. OK, I will try to fix it, thanks David. > >