[dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/bonding: do not inherit slave device configuration

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 11/19/2019 12:40 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 11/19/19 3:18 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 11/19/2019 9:03 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> Bonding device should control bonded devices configuration.
>>>
>>> Also avoid usage of slave's data->dev_conf.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 2efb58cbab6e ("bond: new link bonding library")
>>> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>> index 707a0f3cdd..4f0e83205d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
>>> @@ -1679,6 +1679,7 @@ int
>>>  slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
>>>  		struct rte_eth_dev *slave_eth_dev)
>>>  {
>>> +	struct rte_eth_conf dev_conf;
>>>  	struct bond_rx_queue *bd_rx_q;
>>>  	struct bond_tx_queue *bd_tx_q;
>>>  	uint16_t nb_rx_queues;
>>> @@ -1693,34 +1694,34 @@ slave_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
>>>  	/* Stop slave */
>>>  	rte_eth_dev_stop(slave_eth_dev->data->port_id);
>>>  
>>> +	memset(&dev_conf, 0, sizeof(dev_conf));
>>> +
>>>  	/* Enable interrupts on slave device if supported */
>>>  	if (slave_eth_dev->data->dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC)
>>> -		slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc = 1;
>>> +		dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc = 1;
>> I assume the original intention is making incremental changes to the existing
>> slave configuration, if so we should copy the 'slave_eth_dev->data->dev_conf' to
>> 'dev_conf' before start updating it.
> 
> The problem is that I don't understand how incremental changes
> happen. It simply looks wrong or I don't understand something.
> It looks like it is the only place in bonding where slave configuration
> is done.
> 
Hi Chas, Declan,

Can you please check the patch, and if possible comment on the initial intention
of the code?

Thanks,
ferruh