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

[Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>]

On 03/02/16 11:28, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> 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
>


Hey Bruce, Eric, Stephen, sorry about leaving this patchset hanging 
around. Can you apply patches 1-5 & patch 8 in this patch set. I've 
reviewed and acked all of those patches and I believe they are good tof 
go. I need to give further feedback on patches 6 and 7, as I would like 
to avoid bring further rte_ring buffering into the bonded device if 
possible and I think this should be possible but I haven't had time to 
prototype any alternatives but that shouldn't stop the other patches 
being applied.

Thanks
Declan