[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/1] bond: add mode 4 support v7

[Thomas Monjalon]

> > 2014-11-27 18:01, Michal Jastrzebski:
> > > From: Pawel Wodkowski <pawelx.wodkowski at intel.com>
> > >
> > > This patch set add support for dynamic link aggregation (mode 4) to the
> > > librte_pmd_bond library. This mode provides auto
> > negotiation/configuration
> > > of peers and well as link status changes monitoring using out of band
> > > LACP (link aggregation control protocol) messages. For further details of
> > > LACP specification see the IEEE 802.3ad/802.1AX standards. It is also
> > > described here
> > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt.
> > >
> > > In this implementation we have an array of mode 4 settings for each slave.
> > > There is also assumption that for every port is one aggregator (it might
> > > be unused if better is found).
> > >
> > > Difference in this implementation vs Linux implementation:
> > > - this implementation it is not directly based on state machines but current
> > >   state is calculated from actor and partner states (and other things too).
> > >
> > > Some implementation details:
> > > - during rx burst every packet Is checked if this is LACP or marker packet.
> > >   If it is LACP frame it is passed to mode 4 logic using slaves rx ring  and
> > >   removed from rx buffer before it is returned
> > > - in tx burst, packets from mode 4 (if any) are injected into each slave.
> > > - there is a timer running in background to process/produce mode 4
> > >   frames form rx/to tx functions.
> > >
> > > Some requirements for this mode:
> > > - for LACP mode to work rx and tx burst functions must be invoked
> > >   at least in 100ms intervals (testpmd modified to satisfy this requirement)
> > > - provided buffer to rx burst should be at least 2x slave count size. This is
> > >   not needed but might increase performance especially during initial
> > >   handshake.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pawel Wodkowski <pawelx.wodkowski at intel.com>
> > 
> > I guess it is acked by Declan?
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> I sent this patch to Declan before, and he had no objections.

Applied

Thanks
-- 
Thomas