Re: [PATCH v3] net/bonding: add add/remove mac addrs

[Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net>]

Hi Matan.

> Hi Alex

> Please see comments below.


>> +
>> +             ret = rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_add(slave_port_id, mac_addr, 0);
>> +             if (ret < 0) {
>> +                     /* rollback */
>> +                     for (i--; i > 0; i--)
>> +

> In case of failure in the first mac address(i=1) you are going to
> remove the default mac address(i=0) from the slave.
In that case i will be incremented first and will be equal to 0, then for condition will fail
and the loop body will not be executed.


>>       rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_remove(slave_port_id,
>> +                                     &bonded_eth_dev->data-
>> >mac_addrs[i]);
>> +                     return ret;
>> +             }
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Remove additional MAC addresses from the slave  */ int
>> +slave_remove_mac_addresses(struct rte_eth_dev *bonded_eth_dev,
>> +             uint16_t slave_port_id)
>> +{
>> +     int i, ret = 0;
>> +     struct ether_addr *mac_addr;
>> +
>> +     for (i = 1; i < BOND_MAX_MAC_ADDRS; i++) {
>> +             mac_addr = &bonded_eth_dev->data->mac_addrs[i];
>> +             if (is_same_ether_addr(mac_addr, &null_mac_addr))
>> +                     break;
>> +
>> +             ret = rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_remove(slave_port_id,
>> mac_addr);
>> +     }

> I suggest to return the first error, also in case of all success
> with last failure, the code here wrongly returns success. 
Yeah, you are right. I'll fix it.

>> +
>> +     for (i = 0; i < internals->slave_count; i++) {
>> +             ret = rte_eth_dev_mac_addr_add(internals->slaves[i].port_id,
>> +                             mac_addr, vmdq);
>> +             if (ret < 0) {
>> +                     /* rollback */
>> +                     for (i--; i >= 0; i--)

> In case of failure in the first slave(i=0) you are going probably to get memory error (i=-1).
The same logic apply here. When i ==-1 the condition will fail and the loop body will not be executed;





-- 
Alex