Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/bonding: fix update link status on slave add

[Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>]

On 5/31/2018 5:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 5/31/2018 5:13 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>
>> On 5/31/2018 4:36 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2018 4:34 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2018 3:34 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can see you just prefix "fix" to the title without updating it :)
>>>>
>>>> What about following one:
>>>> "net/bonding: fix slave add for mode 4" ?
>> Great, I'll use it for v3 :)
>>
>>>>> Add a call to rte_eth_link_get_nowait on every slave to update
>>>>> the internal link status struct. Otherwise slave add will fail
>>>>> for mode 4 if the ports are all stopped but only one of them checked.
>>>> What is the link related expectation from slaves in mode 4?
>> To be identical across all ports
>>>> What does "if the ports are all stopped but only one of them checked" mean, why
>>>> checking only one of them?
>> This is the behavior of testpmd, stop getting the link status after the
>> first down port; but this should not affect bonding, so there is no need
>> to update testpmd.
> I see, when this link updating happens in this bonding issue context? When
> bonding device created?
>
> Should we update testpmd behavior too?
Yes, I think that stop_port(portid_t pid) may need some rework. I'm not 
sure I understand the reason it calls check_all_ports_link_status(), for 
example.
Also, check_all_ports_link_status should do what it implies it does, 
check all ports, not stop at the first down port.

>
>>>>> Fixes: b77d21cc2364 ("ethdev: add link status get/set helper functions")
>>>>> Bugzilla entry: https://dpdk.org/tracker/show_bug.cgi?id=52
>>> Bugzilla ID: 52
>>>
>>> btw, can you please send new version as reply to previous version?
>> Sure.
>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2: add fix and Bugzilla references
>>>>>
>>>>>    drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c | 2 ++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
>>>>> index d558df8..cad08b9 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_api.c
>>>>> @@ -296,6 +296,8 @@ __eth_bond_slave_add_lock_free(uint16_t bonded_port_id, uint16_t slave_port_id)
>>>>>    		return -1;
>>>>>    	}
>>>>>    
>>>>> +	rte_eth_link_get_nowait(slave_port_id, &link_props);
>>>>> +
>>>> The error seems in link_properties_valid(), does it make sense to get link info
>>>> inside that function before link checks?
>> Not really, as one might expect that link_properties_valid will only
>> test the struct rte_eth_link *slave_link argument, not update it.
> Fair enough, I just thought to be sure the tested link is up to date, but that
> function seems only called by __eth_bond_slave_add_lock_free() which you are
> updating, so this is ok.
>
>>>>>    	slave_add(internals, slave_eth_dev);
>>>>>    
>>>>>    	/* We need to store slaves reta_size to be able to synchronize RETA for all
>>>>>