From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/vmxnet3: keep link state consistent Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:03:06 +0200 Message-ID: <1549783.CbrISpF0YD@xps> References: <20180318014552.16703-1-3chas3@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit , skhare@vmware.com, stable@dpdk.org To: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com>, Chas Williams Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 20/03/2018 15:12, Ferruh Yigit: > On 3/18/2018 1:45 AM, Chas Williams wrote: > > From: Chas Williams > > > > The vmxnet3 never attempts link speed negotiation. As a virtual device > > the link speed is vague at best. However, it is important for certain > > applications, like bonding, to see a consistent link_status. 802.3ad > > requires that only links of the same cost (link speed) be enslaved. > > Keeping the link status consistent in vmxnet3 avoids races with bonding > > enslavement. I don't understand the issue. Are you sure it is not an issue in bonding? About the right value to set for virtual PMDs, I don't know, both are fakes. I thought that AUTONEG better convey the vague link speed you describe. > > Author: Thomas Monjalon > > Date: Fri Jan 5 18:38:55 2018 +0100 > > > > Fixes: 1e3a958f40b3 ("ethdev: fix link autonegotiation value") > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > There were a few more PMDs [1] they have been updated from FIXED to AUTONEG with > above commit, do you think should we update them back to FIXED as well? > > [1] > pcap > softnic > vmxnet3 Yes, they all can be fixed/LINK_FIXED :) I guess