[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/bonding: fix link status check

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 2/12/2018 6:26 PM, Chas Williams wrote:
> It's not clear to me that link_properties_valid() is even correct.  Nothing
> prevents an adapter from later negotiating a lower speed and would fail this
> test.  If both adapters are set to autoneg, that should be sufficient but
> nothing enforces the speed match after the slaves are configured.  So what is
> the point of this check?

Reminder of this patch.

This is waiting in the backlog for a long time. It is not even clear if the
patch is still valid or not.

Also based on missing response to Chas' clarification request, I am for
dropping/rejecting the patch.

@Declan, @Radu please chime in if this patch is required/valid.

> 
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net
> <mailto:thomas at monjalon.net>> wrote:
> 
>     17/01/2018 17:02, Ferruh Yigit:
>     > On 11/29/2017 3:42 PM, Tomasz Kulasek wrote:
>     > > Some devices needs more time to initialize and bring interface up. When
>     > > link is down the link properties are not valid, e.g. link_speed is
>     > > reported as 0 and this is not a valid speed for slave as well as for whole
>     > > bonding.
>     > >
>     > > During NIC (and bonding) initialization there's concurrency between
>     > > updating link status and adding slave to the bonding.
>     > >
>     > > This patch:
>     > >
>     > >  - adds delay before configuring bonding (if link is down) to be sure that
>     > >    link status of new slave is valid,
>     > >  - propagates information about link status from first slave with link up
>     > >    instead of first slave at all, to be sure that link speed is valid.
>     > >
>     > > Fixes: 6abd94d72ab5 ("net/bonding: fix check slaves link properties")
>     > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Kulasek <tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com <mailto:tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com>>
>     > > ---
>     > > v2 changes:
>     > >  - Checkpatch warnings,
>     > >  - Improved code style
>     > Hi Declan,
>     >
>     > Any comment on this patch?
> 
>     Any news?
> 
> 
>