From: "Benoit Ganne (bganne)" <bganne@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>,
"viacheslavo@mellanox.com" <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>,
"matan@mellanox.com" <matan@mellanox.com>,
"rasland@mellanox.com" <rasland@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] CX4-Lx VF link status in Azure
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:02:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CH2PR11MB43279B84D5F6DF016918FB36C1CC0@CH2PR11MB4327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2170638.ECZNHGQPT7@xps>
> Second, as Benoit said, we should relax this requirement.
> If the link speed is unknown, a second request can be tried, no more.
> Benoit, feel free to submit a patch showing how you think it should
> behave.
> Otherwise, I guess a maintainer of mlx5 will try to arrange it later.
> Note: a patch (even not perfect) is usually speeding up resolution.
I can do that, but I am not sure I understand the logic of this test to begin with: looking into other PMD (mlx4, i40e), it seems to be the only one worrying about updating link state only when "ready" for some not clear (to me) definition of "ready".
I'll tend to agree with other PMD here: if the syscalls did not failed we should just update with what we know.
Why was this test introduced and what did it fixed?
ben
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-27 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-25 19:07 Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-03-25 21:32 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-03-25 22:48 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-03-26 14:26 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-03-26 17:57 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-03-26 18:27 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-03-26 18:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-03-26 19:00 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-03-26 20:09 ` Mark Bloch
2020-03-26 20:40 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-03-26 21:31 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-03-27 10:02 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne) [this message]
2020-03-27 10:13 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-03-27 17:26 ` Benoit Ganne (bganne)
2020-03-27 22:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CH2PR11MB43279B84D5F6DF016918FB36C1CC0@CH2PR11MB4327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=bganne@cisco.com \
--cc=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=rasland@mellanox.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=users@dpdk.org \
--cc=viacheslavo@mellanox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).