From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526D395C8 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:28:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2016 03:28:58 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,390,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="875977952" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.159]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 03 Feb 2016 03:28:56 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 03 Feb 2016 04:28:55 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 04:28:55 -0700 From: Bruce Richardson To: Eric Kinzie , Stephen Hemminger , Doherty, Declan Message-ID: <20160203112854.GA13036@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1449249260-15165-1-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org> <1449249260-15165-7-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20151204191831.GA20647@roosta.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151204191831.GA20647@roosta.home> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 6/8] bond: handle slaves with fewer queues than bonding device X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:28:59 -0000 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