Re: [dpdk-dev] 答复: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd:add bond type description

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

16/08/2017 04:31, xie.rongqiang@zte.com.cn:
> I am sorry to reply so late for some reason.
> 
> And i figure out two ways to implement this kind of things inside the 
> bonding code,
> 
> First,if can the function rte_eth_bond_mode_get() return string, so we can 
> print

No it is better to use integers in API.

> the bond mode straight, but in this way, we need fix the other c source 
> where call the function. 
> 
> Second, we add an interface return bond mode string, in this way, we just 
> call it in function

Yes a new function to convert integer to string seems better.

At the end, Declan should approve/decide.

> cmd_show_bonding_config_parsed().
> 
> Finally, which way do you agree more? 
> 
> Looking forward to your early reply,Thank your. 
> 
> 
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>  2017/07/03 02:11:52:
> 
> > :  Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > :  Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>, 
> > : dev@dpdk.org, RongQiang Xie <xie.rongqiang@zte.com.cn>, 
> > jingjing.wu@intel.com
> > :  2017/07/03 02:12
> > : Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd:add bond type description
> > 
> > 30/06/2017 17:39, Declan Doherty:
> > > On 30/06/17 08:56, RongQiang Xie wrote:
> > > > In function cmd_show_bonding_config_parsed() used number represent
> > > > the bond type,in order more detailed,add bond type description
> > > > otherwise we may confused about the number type.
> > > > And also,the primary port just use in mode active backup and tlb,
> > > > so,when the mode is active backup or tlb show the primary port info
> > > > may be more appropriate.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: RongQiang Xie <xie.rongqiang@zte.com.cn>
> > > > ---
> > > >   app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> > > >   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > > > index ff8ffd2..45845a4 100644
> > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > > > @@ -4390,7 +4390,9 @@ static void cmd_show_bonding_config_parsed
> > (void *parsed_result,
> > > >         printf("\tFailed to get bonding mode for port = %d\n", 
> port_id);
> > > >         return;
> > > >      } else
> > > > -      printf("\tBonding mode: %d\n", bonding_mode);
> > > > +      printf("\tBonding mode: %d ", bonding_mode);
> > > > +   printf("[0:Round Robin, 1:Active Backup, 2:Balance, 3:Broadcast, 
> ");
> > > > +   printf("\n\t\t\t4:802.3AD, 5:Adaptive TLB, 6:Adaptive Load 
> > Balancing]\n");
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Good idea, but it would be clearer if we just returned the actual mode 
> 
> > > string so the user doesn't need to parse it themselves, like below.
> > > 
> > > -       } else
> > > -               printf("\tBonding mode: %d ", bonding_mode);
> > > -       printf("[0:Round Robin, 1:Active Backup, 2:Balance, 
> 3:Broadcast, ");
> > > -       printf("\n\t\t\t4:802.3AD, 5:Adaptive TLB, 6:Adaptive Load 
> > > Balancing]\n");
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       printf("\tBonding mode: %d (", bonding_mode);
> > > +       switch (bonding_mode) {
> > > +       case BONDING_MODE_ROUND_ROBIN:
> > > +               printf("round-robin");
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case BONDING_MODE_ACTIVE_BACKUP:
> > > +               printf("active-backup");
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case BONDING_MODE_BALANCE:
> > > +               printf("link-aggregation");
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case BONDING_MODE_BROADCAST:
> > > +               printf("broadcast");
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case BONDING_MODE_8023AD:
> > > +               printf("link-aggregation-802.3ad");
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case BONDING_MODE_TLB:
> > > +               printf("transmit-load-balancing");
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case BONDING_MODE_ALB:
> > > +               printf("adaptive-load-balancing");
> > > +               break;
> > > +       default:
> > > +               printf("unknown-mode");
> > > +       }
> > > +       printf(")\n");
> > 
> > I would say no.
> > Can we think how to implement this kind of things inside the bonding 
> code?
> > 
> > 
>