From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <3chas3@gmail.com> Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com (mail-io0-f194.google.com [209.85.223.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8DD41B383 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:26:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io0-f194.google.com with SMTP id f4so18307661ioh.8 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:26:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FwgVjKLdu5V0YviXlwp9hMQ9kehNbJdlAEe2YkHCvx4=; b=SBWBQRi4uG/qNJuK7EyBsr5fOIochJjcT2ZHDcDlQVuWnDTzlaFYQB1WuDAY5IvVB7 A0Okp/+7MJvpzRpFKjGrkbzcVBq5aBEpYAoo6fx2csAsoZqNkBX/gZaoUnG3p3HUtzvy UiW0Kim9C+Km1zUHlNJ95uldBvn3wBW+bUt/JTYSF83r6rjvvZk+33l27VkD5mG6Gk8m cRXKyiFXmZiPMAdZ0zv23qZIDNiNpoCqxx8jTw0qrglzU/MebafE5RzlaUMpPev1tDzw lZb3oqc+EYDvK2P+f+qIqcwRpGM/Ipr6I6viNkK8r7WR9cVyrE2giy6QfizOJQT4la/E DdWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FwgVjKLdu5V0YviXlwp9hMQ9kehNbJdlAEe2YkHCvx4=; b=IXCTJg/I/D0M+3YA7Mxi07ILUY3BaRYvlyNfmoIjHQY4WxcTqmewuYajPWRJgUnmgh eOi+y12If8eQjP2RcYeSDUwsidyviGdTvpmBRBj3hkOZvESDSzxFCR6nyl6k+K2/E97K wycRgEB2lefiL+Q1rOcrmboRT/4BHB0KgsfdLuBbS57YJw0O/MtaIVbpTBOvCqe4w2qM c0fheRorZ7p9E/LiPothe2NkutR/XONENk3YePyAieKcu17ckCv4YEHxaqUAZzgzF/5P l/J1QJ8+WPJtgeRpvbFFSKdPIUZk3nH+Ap99vA/rulf6wzeAEzTtETzMg4XcEI2LPI3p vXCg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPALG0VMDf9IoySlZJfSquBUKLGZL/xkD7L+1n5jHNxR9HzH0BwG iD6xVi3oBq8nfsEbbCmHbOD/IZ/gS40A3juz3cE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225A2cLbGpByS70v2ol2u5ep2V0lqkExU14Heqf9LqxwtQXtqqOXUc/YZbQl8op2N8cClK74uefZEILwzgSS7/k= X-Received: by 10.107.11.169 with SMTP id 41mr5991079iol.25.1518460005916; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:26:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.38.67 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:26:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7290841.LMfcIyB1JH@xps> References: <20171129145349.43448-1-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <20171129154200.14436-1-tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com> <581f7aef-7dc6-22dc-f177-049e9384c051@intel.com> <7290841.LMfcIyB1JH@xps> From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:26:45 -0500 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Declan Doherty , dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit , Tomasz Kulasek Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/bonding: fix link status check X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:26:46 -0000 It's not clear to me that link_properties_valid() is even correct. Nothing prevents an adapter from later negotiating a lower speed and would fail this test. If both adapters are set to autoneg, that should be sufficient but nothing enforces the speed match after the slaves are configured. So what is the point of this check? On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 17/01/2018 17:02, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 11/29/2017 3:42 PM, Tomasz Kulasek wrote: > > > Some devices needs more time to initialize and bring interface up. When > > > link is down the link properties are not valid, e.g. link_speed is > > > reported as 0 and this is not a valid speed for slave as well as for > whole > > > bonding. > > > > > > During NIC (and bonding) initialization there's concurrency between > > > updating link status and adding slave to the bonding. > > > > > > This patch: > > > > > > - adds delay before configuring bonding (if link is down) to be sure > that > > > link status of new slave is valid, > > > - propagates information about link status from first slave with link > up > > > instead of first slave at all, to be sure that link speed is valid. > > > > > > Fixes: 6abd94d72ab5 ("net/bonding: fix check slaves link properties") > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Kulasek > > > --- > > > v2 changes: > > > - Checkpatch warnings, > > > - Improved code style > > Hi Declan, > > > > Any comment on this patch? > > Any news? > > >