From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd:add bond type description
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2017 20:11:52 +0200
Message-ID: <5305497.JiKmSDtoNP@xps>
References: <201706300758.v5U7wu8t037841@mse01.zte.com.cn>
 <eb9fbd68-e870-bc15-f954-8e602836f7fc@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, RongQiang Xie <xie.rongqiang@zte.com.cn>,
 jingjing.wu@intel.com
To: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 575A42C39
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun,  2 Jul 2017 20:11:57 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <eb9fbd68-e870-bc15-f954-8e602836f7fc@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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@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?