Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 6/8] bond: handle slaves with fewer queues than bonding device

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:18:34PM -0500, Eric Kinzie wrote:
> On Fri Dec 04 19:36:09 +0100 2015, Andriy Berestovskyy wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I'm not quite sure if we can support less TX queues on a slave that easy:
> > 
> > > queue_id = bond_slave_txqid(internals, i, bd_tx_q->queue_id);
> > > num_tx_slave = rte_eth_tx_burst(slaves[i], queue_id,
> > >      slave_bufs[i], slave_nb_pkts[i]);
> > 
> > It seems that two different lcores might end up writing to the same
> > slave queue at the same time, isn't it?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Andriy
> 
> Andriy, I think you're probably right about this.  Perhaps it should
> instead refuse to add or refuse to activate a slave with too few
> tx queues.  Could probably fix this with another layer of buffering
> so that an lcore with a valid tx queue could pick up the mbufs later,
> but this doesn't seem very appealing.
> 
> Eric
>
Hi Eric, Stephen, Declan,

all patches of the set apart from this one and the next (nos 6 & 7) have no
comments and have been acked. Is there a resolution on these two patches, so they
can be acked and merged?

Regards,
/Bruce