From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/bonding: add add/remove mac addrs
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:00:19 -0700
Message-ID: <20180618120019.66b3bfbb@xeon-e3>
References: <20180618122720.5B3F51559@dpdk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Chas Williams <chas3@att.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com (mail-pg0-f68.google.com [74.125.83.68])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C241559
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:00:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg0-f68.google.com with SMTP id l65-v6so7949414pgl.8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180618122720.5B3F51559@dpdk.org>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:27:16 +0300
Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net> wrote:

> +/*
> + * 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;
> +	struct ether_addr *mac_addr;
> +
> +	/* add additional MACs to the slave */
> +	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);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	}

Not sure this is the best semantic if remove fails on one of many
slaves. Perhaps it should always remove it from all slaves.

Or maybe a first pass to see if the address exists, then
a no-fail removal pass.