From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFC8A3160 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:34:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7891E975; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:34:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A858C1E92F for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:34:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id y19so6742131wrd.3 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=saguna-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=Ki8qFjKbsiAXu06nZYV0VfO/eZVMuBFPb9kOzwwlaig=; b=aCxCUTf6IsSSxlAd+v5oUb0nnWwUIb6J7Lb/oeaw5jWGoNhg0z0IschwBre09d/5GC R3shOyEf7oErtpGTINq1FeT5iwl6UCShBKisg4My9Kk0j9IM0NdwWjzdcZUw3sT+kKsU 5AWmpoTQCQkzmYTPgjkpDn203XyZvBeobbd/DZFDSrGUEVzU34LpaiqFWIv1NRFirqdF DDa2nmgjQzn9AUTTLJIkC0lorqTMuk2uGu7iEkKb9yLUjfaQYHmrS70Pgz11fZxVtrT8 jmC03ae2tC2VT+mvrMyWAbXpDJwDkHujDReinmXKK2n9O5b8O9vPRbVQI3XKKrpYip6B lFGg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=Ki8qFjKbsiAXu06nZYV0VfO/eZVMuBFPb9kOzwwlaig=; b=TQt4shH8sKEvSvi4QiTz8VcuZ6hdcecC++EWwNT4M5trdN58v9CeLWn5FJ8Q+Lluvy YVE9PDda5QUNstr28bbdB89e7FjgJbgqUZCZRM+3t1A0Org5iyr62vlkiqPl2ZOoN5re DqXYnoHPCMuyrGEtV/xzch13nMWPHBL8hf6VAg0z3YS5kgejlk7vI7yFeA336sTDdyB9 RcbMSZqBY+05KwleVLsbVk5X9oFkjrI9o2Jy+SfANNuDZqY1UoVFGEEVMKEKzjzpB2XX 5PcIM+WsStzoOgvP3xd7gL6EGGt8NiqhSB2tHN0qeM83mpukrbtL7f07DnyqVndcnn5J Kr/w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAULiVsKm6oE4JPGUvanyYmy3WCAegulMoTYoLkmXnZm24rZXklq e+21PrUK/xVux+cGknatgr+qdMTn7Zs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwRcw7V9DyU9gnYv4y6Mkp8hFEQJBYBHVQFw470/Qg9yrzyQHCJapFNpYq9XIcqKUWP3EHltQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:dfce:: with SMTP id q14mr7118078wrn.14.1570696484329; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.10] (odap-199-203-102-60.bb.netvision.net.il. [199.203.102.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g3sm6227679wro.14.2019.10.10.01.34.43 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:34:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Eugene Iskra To: users@dpdk.org References: <4ed5ac6c-046e-fc70-f756-e86fdaa16423@saguna.net> Message-ID: <4e470fe9-ad0f-d06b-9b47-acabc6767fe7@saguna.net> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:34:42 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4ed5ac6c-046e-fc70-f756-e86fdaa16423@saguna.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US-large Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] bonding - slave mac address is not updated X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" I see there's an open bug on this issue. https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=256 On 10/7/19 21:17, Eugene Iskra wrote: > Hello, > > I am using DPDK 18.11.2 with bonding in BONDING_MODE_ACTIVE_BACKUP mode. > When both slaves are connected to the switch, the primary slave > receives / sends traffic > and everything work well. > When the primary port is disconnected, and the secondary slave becomes > primary, > no packets are received, except for broadcast packets. > > Looking at bond_ethdev_lsc_event_callback in rte_eth_bond_pmd.c, I see > that > mac_address_slaves_update is called only when slave link is brought > up, but if slave > goes down, mac addresses are not updated. > > Also the mac_address_slaves_update function itself doesn't seem to > update mac address > correctly for the new primary port, since it updates > internals->primary_port instead > of internals->current_primary_port. > > Is this an actual bug or am I misunderstanding something / something > is not configured > right? > > > Regards, > Eugene