From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] bond: handle slaves with fewer queues
 than bonding device
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 04:28:55 -0700
Message-ID: <20160203112854.GA13036@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1449249260-15165-1-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <1449249260-15165-7-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <CAOysbxrWFKP4kXD1jSTNPqrWcPr4H=n4taEEkGCpaNrk+t2HbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151204191831.GA20647@roosta.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Eric Kinzie <ehkinzie@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, Doherty@dpdk.org,
	Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526D395C8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Feb 2016 12:28:59 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151204191831.GA20647@roosta.home>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:18:34PM -0500, Eric Kinzie wrote:
> On Fri Dec 04 19:36:09 +0100 2015, Andriy Berestovskyy wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I'm not quite sure if we can support less TX queues on a slave that easy:
> > 
> > > queue_id = bond_slave_txqid(internals, i, bd_tx_q->queue_id);
> > > num_tx_slave = rte_eth_tx_burst(slaves[i], queue_id,
> > >      slave_bufs[i], slave_nb_pkts[i]);
> > 
> > It seems that two different lcores might end up writing to the same
> > slave queue at the same time, isn't it?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Andriy
> 
> Andriy, I think you're probably right about this.  Perhaps it should
> instead refuse to add or refuse to activate a slave with too few
> tx queues.  Could probably fix this with another layer of buffering
> so that an lcore with a valid tx queue could pick up the mbufs later,
> but this doesn't seem very appealing.
> 
> Eric
>
Hi Eric, Stephen, Declan,

all patches of the set apart from this one and the next (nos 6 & 7) have no
comments and have been acked. Is there a resolution on these two patches, so they
can be acked and merged?

Regards,
/Bruce