From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A14A0589 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 11:13:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E911C030; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 11:13:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4CD1BFD7 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 11:13:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D6D5C0424; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:13:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=iNhQXNTnfz+bs1q17KpoxYqjR9861N4B1xxFflwtQD8=; b=aDtQO7fk4c16 6WAT4yzkCoH3I0TR3aWeSIUAdgarpACAfKYfxB9cEsxxPQVG7EuD+LB3SN6uISMb EP8lezhpwhndBs3EAOjLI5HdVEBpYJl7IjdG1yiFWHIlhKIIMHUejCxmgYpjIvGj pfOoJVgUs9NwaeciHXHUF/6XeiyedUY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=iNhQXNTnfz+bs1q17KpoxYqjR9861N4B1xxFflwtQ D8=; b=MU+RdXYjlcttxvUou9cMIRb8MbAPUjuSC+e9SjPFjJDBglcgJ/YSaaZ5B j1qT9XQ/2Lkl3euMobTJWqSGN+dlmTP9C5H3E8lI9X/4SfetEyJNQIt1G7OJusTE lf6CPP6UxS+jFRHYCq2+Y0sMaOl+DGqtTlrjVcwzkj4gLecf0tSsyKVR5T0NsFqX SA5tAJd36hb+S8ODp84A1G+AVXMppz66J4xCcQraF+nO5DwWpTvQSGjMkLmleV4X 9VMiraplvgxTyT8DWcL5YEk9099wIlurCUtlIN5fOaC9QE40OYZgpWueVKDDLHXK JCAzZlXeIjtcWfdgJuMs4vRlWvEPA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudehledgudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 84C1F3280059; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:13:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Benoit Ganne (bganne)" Cc: "users@dpdk.org" , "viacheslavo@mellanox.com" , "matan@mellanox.com" , "rasland@mellanox.com" Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 11:13:34 +0100 Message-ID: <2609429.XrmoMso0CX@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <2170638.ECZNHGQPT7@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] CX4-Lx VF link status in Azure X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" 27/03/2020 11:02, Benoit Ganne (bganne): > > Second, as Benoit said, we should relax this requirement. > > If the link speed is unknown, a second request can be tried, no more. > > Benoit, feel free to submit a patch showing how you think it should > > behave. > > Otherwise, I guess a maintainer of mlx5 will try to arrange it later. > > Note: a patch (even not perfect) is usually speeding up resolution. > > I can do that, but I am not sure I understand the logic of this test to begin with: looking into other PMD (mlx4, i40e), it seems to be the only one worrying about updating link state only when "ready" for some not clear (to me) definition of "ready". > I'll tend to agree with other PMD here: if the syscalls did not failed we should just update with what we know. > Why was this test introduced and what did it fixed? Unfortunately the reason was not documented. I suggest we go with a patch from your understanding and we'll test it in multiple conditions to validate nothing is broken.