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:

quoted

Hi guys,
I'm not quite sure if we can support less TX queues on a slave that easy:

quoted

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