From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9212B4F93 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:14:24 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Mar 2018 11:14:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,345,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="41329372" Received: from fyigit-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.63]) ([10.237.221.63]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Mar 2018 11:14:22 -0700 To: Matan Azrad , Declan Doherty Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Radu Nicolau References: <20180313122444.160759-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:14:21 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/bonding: switch to new offloading flags 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: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:14:25 -0000 On 3/14/2018 12:50 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > Questions: > Have you an idea why bonding PMD doesn't adjust the slaves port configurations to the bonding port configuration like he does for slave queue configuration? > Is the responsibility to fill the slave port configuration structure for the application? > > What do you think about next configuration checks (both per port and per queue)? > Validate the actual bonding offloads with the bonding capability. > Validate that the queue offloads includes all the port configured offloads. I don't have answers for these, perhaps Declan or Radu can help.