[dpdk-dev] 答复: Re: 答复: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd:add bond type description

[xie.rongqiang at zte.com.cn]

Hi,
   I make a new patch for this issue becase the previous patch has delete 
when the version 17.08 release.
 
   The website is http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/27851/,Thank 
you.


Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> 写于 2017/08/24 04:22:17:

> 发件人:  Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> 收件人:  xie.rongqiang at zte.com.cn, Declan Doherty 
> <declan.doherty at intel.com>, 
> 抄送: dev at dpdk.org, jingjing.wu at intel.com
> 日期:  2017/08/24 04:23
> 主题: Re: [dpdk-dev] 答复: Re:  [PATCH] app/testpmd:add bond type 
description
> 
> 16/08/2017 04:31, xie.rongqiang at zte.com.cn:
> > I am sorry to reply so late for some reason.
> > 
> > And i figure out two ways to implement this kind of things inside the 
> > bonding code,
> > 
> > First,if can the function rte_eth_bond_mode_get() return string, so we 
can 
> > print
> 
> No it is better to use integers in API.
> 
> > the bond mode straight, but in this way, we need fix the other c 
source 
> > where call the function. 
> > 
> > Second, we add an interface return bond mode string, in this way, we 
just 
> > call it in function
> 
> Yes a new function to convert integer to string seems better.
> 
> At the end, Declan should approve/decide.
> 
> > cmd_show_bonding_config_parsed().
> > 
> > Finally, which way do you agree more? 
> > 
> > Looking forward to your early reply,Thank your. 
> > 
> > 
> > Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>  2017/07/03 02:11:52:
> > 
> > > :  Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> > > :  Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>, 
> > > : dev at dpdk.org, RongQiang Xie <xie.rongqiang at zte.com.cn>, 
> > > jingjing.wu at intel.com
> > > :  2017/07/03 02:12
> > > : Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd:add bond type description
> > > 
> > > 30/06/2017 17:39, Declan Doherty:
> > > > On 30/06/17 08:56, RongQiang Xie wrote:
> > > > > In function cmd_show_bonding_config_parsed() used number 
represent
> > > > > the bond type,in order more detailed,add bond type description
> > > > > otherwise we may confused about the number type.
> > > > > And also,the primary port just use in mode active backup and 
tlb,
> > > > > so,when the mode is active backup or tlb show the primary port 
info
> > > > > may be more appropriate.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: RongQiang Xie <xie.rongqiang at zte.com.cn>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> > > > >   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > > > > index ff8ffd2..45845a4 100644
> > > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> > > > > @@ -4390,7 +4390,9 @@ static void cmd_show_bonding_config_parsed
> > > (void *parsed_result,
> > > > >         printf("\tFailed to get bonding mode for port = %d\n", 
> > port_id);
> > > > >         return;
> > > > >      } else
> > > > > -      printf("\tBonding mode: %d\n", bonding_mode);
> > > > > +      printf("\tBonding mode: %d ", bonding_mode);
> > > > > +   printf("[0:Round Robin, 1:Active Backup, 2:Balance, 
3:Broadcast, 
> > ");
> > > > > +   printf("\n\t\t\t4:802.3AD, 5:Adaptive TLB, 6:Adaptive Load 
> > > Balancing]\n");
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Good idea, but it would be clearer if we just returned the actual 
mode 
> > 
> > > > string so the user doesn't need to parse it themselves, like 
below.
> > > > 
> > > > -       } else
> > > > -               printf("\tBonding mode: %d ", bonding_mode);
> > > > -       printf("[0:Round Robin, 1:Active Backup, 2:Balance, 
> > 3:Broadcast, ");
> > > > -       printf("\n\t\t\t4:802.3AD, 5:Adaptive TLB, 6:Adaptive Load 

> > > > Balancing]\n");
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > > +       printf("\tBonding mode: %d (", bonding_mode);
> > > > +       switch (bonding_mode) {
> > > > +       case BONDING_MODE_ROUND_ROBIN:
> > > > +               printf("round-robin");
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case BONDING_MODE_ACTIVE_BACKUP:
> > > > +               printf("active-backup");
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case BONDING_MODE_BALANCE:
> > > > +               printf("link-aggregation");
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case BONDING_MODE_BROADCAST:
> > > > +               printf("broadcast");
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case BONDING_MODE_8023AD:
> > > > +               printf("link-aggregation-802.3ad");
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case BONDING_MODE_TLB:
> > > > +               printf("transmit-load-balancing");
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case BONDING_MODE_ALB:
> > > > +               printf("adaptive-load-balancing");
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       default:
> > > > +               printf("unknown-mode");
> > > > +       }
> > > > +       printf(")\n");
> > > 
> > > I would say no.
> > > Can we think how to implement this kind of things inside the bonding 

> > code?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>