From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <3chas3@gmail.com> Received: from mail-it0-f68.google.com (mail-it0-f68.google.com [209.85.214.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6513F1B46B for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 19:29:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-it0-f68.google.com with SMTP id 76-v6so6833626itx.4 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:29:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=y5vEd+/c39NYch90hLlN7RiUP7YsSEGRp3/ClZmcuEY=; b=fZLlKBG3rCdblG6CenFP9+UDgqYQ4Io12HBXPk4GlxGovXDRqDUN1lt8CE90Hk2s+o UJPgo/PhUzVc35SJodWL0LIjH6/dr5l72jKr5DZy95VEYrV8ahDzMFRgaOpllay4ghiT KJxSR2IVN05IKJyKHwVT6b70IMPwPbc1d7tFEtDbhycnv5592whrTjw/c+TG5EFS5q5Z mjoz0S3Kqdrdun1xLf6M1TuAv1acLWtA9iWb2+psH5r4PtM/ZDou/YN6OUqlYgas3/D8 GPhUhku95GQy7wY9Abx8cKbsn7gOEQtDXkWQrEp/n8FlJuzGNYuy77BnoCabiuCXCsHQ lKbw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=y5vEd+/c39NYch90hLlN7RiUP7YsSEGRp3/ClZmcuEY=; b=G58JQPVWzPox8D8EpW0/vOR74ydmJoXPiEw5P487v39/xRhirPKfoLFJ339mQjDHKM UppqssA4qnufySO+KsDdqX+0FfjNzJ2ExJzYjCh8CxWzPZVaFIuRibMl38sppA1dZcTw j52CHfAe35osa53dzI3GtH+15l7QjC5EUZ9qgu8Edql2735Pxpe8ZkvwaXlxSFWnw0P9 8BUemnHlG1EqcSyxyR0svREAfJ8iDvpfHKiZhZ3OV2CyvM9mAnDe0pTCdzZX3KXqqbO0 UCok2DL1DmWG+nWiUUv5fCH6cxrVbnCFWLeevDUYUdxspYlrEB6rqW1apqpFIdPQc9r3 xGrA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0ED3UWWdmE2oTRGZTuEOcHh6rfI/ovWMEaPOCo4mYsO9XgTR+7 WcYNsckTTJqKHRvQ0hLEQvK6OTvIXN/j4u8L9ts= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLgd7ePs0koJ3jadSWNmVlHbReUt1Deh4aGLjydbOqoyTGmkXy6utVcdryMbSdvEbRXM35s1UilcqMOIUM7Wpg= X-Received: by 2002:a24:8b81:: with SMTP id g123-v6mr5157513ite.67.1529170160673; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:29:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180213225430.15556-1-3chas3@gmail.com> <2e5428fc-f026-ae2d-e199-5215f14910c7@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2e5428fc-f026-ae2d-e199-5215f14910c7@intel.com> From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 13:29:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Matan Azrad , dev@dpdk.org, Declan Doherty , Chas Williams Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/bonding: fix link properties with autoneg 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: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 17:29:21 -0000 On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:04 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 4/16/2018 8:09 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > > Hi Chas > > > > From: Chas Williams, Monday, April 16, 2018 7:44 PM > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:06 AM, Matan Azrad > >> wrote: > >>> Hi Chas > >>> > >>> From: Chas Williams, Wednesday, February 14, 2018 12:55 AM > >>>> If a link is carrier down and using autonegotiation, then the PMD may > >>>> not have detected a speed yet. In this case the best we can do is > >>>> ignore the link speed and duplex since they aren't valid. > >>> > >>> Ok for this. > >>> > >>>> To be completely correct, there > >>>> should be additional checks to prevent a slave that negotiates a > >>>> different speed from being activated. > >>> > >>> Looks like every changing in the link properties should cause LSC > interrupt. > >>> In the bonding LCS interrupt you could handle and to deactivate the > device. > >>> Also you should deal with the case of the first slave, what is happen > if the > >> first slave has invalid link properties? > >>> How can you know that the speed\duplex_mode is invalid? > >>> Are we sure LACP mode can run with auto negotiation? > >> > >> Yes, I am pretty sure bonding doesn't get this right when the interfaces > >> aren't link up. While what bonding is doing is likely wrong, it > doesn't mean > >> that the behavior of the PMDs are correct in leaving the link_status > unset > >> until the first LSC interrupt. > >> > >> I plan to get around to looking at this bonding problem in a little > bit. Luckily it > >> seems that we always tend to get matched links and even if bonding is > >> advertising the wrong aggregate speed and duplex we are find for now. > It > >> wouldn't pass close inspection by a protocol analyzer though. > >> > > > > So, Are you going to fix it, > > If no, I think you can open a bug in Bugzilla. > > Hi Matan, Chas, > > What is the latest status of the patch? > And I guess there is another issue as well discussed here, is it still > valid? > > Thanks, > ferruh > I think this issue is better addressed by http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/40572/ There's just a little more cleanup that needs to be done in that patch.