<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/12/2023 11:36, David Marchand
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJFAV8zfx7ZOff0deGQP3_v6NS+Z61uHNY-V+QyJVQ8-Wz9cyA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre><pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hello,
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 4:40 PM Maryam Tahhan <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mtahhan@redhat.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><mtahhan@redhat.com></a> wrote:
</pre><blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;"><pre
class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">With the original 'use_cni' implementation, (using a
hardcoded socket rather than a configurable one),
if a DPDK pod is requesting multiple net devices
and these devices are from different pools, then
the container attempts to mount all the netdev UDSes
in the pod as /tmp/afxdp.sock. Which means that at best
only 1 netdev will handshake correctly with the AF_XDP
DP. This patch addresses this by making the socket
parameter configurable using a new vdev param called
'uds_path' and removing the previous 'use_cni' param.
This patch also fixes incorrect references to the
AF_XDP DP as CNI and updates the documentation with a
working example. This change has been tested with the
</pre></blockquote><pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">If there are fixes mixed in, please separate them in dedicated patches
so we can backport them to LTS releases.</pre></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks for the Feedback David, I don't quite understand the ask
here, is to to have a separate patch for documentation to fixes?
As previous feedback in the mailing list was to keep the
documentation changes with the fix.<br>
<br>
There is one fix in this patchset (for for broken socket
behaviour). The rest of the changes were fixing up all the
documentation. So do I need to create a patchset with multiple
patches, one for the c code and separate ones for the
documentation?<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>