On 09/01/2017 11:50 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:27:43AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 09/01/2017 10:55 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> Hi Florian
>>>
>>>>>> tc bind dev sw0p0 queue 0 dev eth0 queue 16
>>>
>>> It this the eth0 i don't like here. Why not in the implementation just
>>> use something like netdev_master_upper_dev_get('sw0p0')? Or does
>>
>> Last I brought this up with Jiri that we should link DSA network devices
>> to their master network deviecs with netdev_upper_dev_link() he said
>> this was not appropriate for DSA slave network devices, but I can't
>> remember why, I would assume that any stacked device set up would do that.
>
> There is some form a linking going, our device names show that:
>
> 9: lan5@eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN mode
> DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
> link/ether da:87:2a:03:cf:16 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
This is because iproute2 is linking the devices based on what
ndo_get_iflink() returns.
>
>> In any case, we need to establish a mapping so we have to specify at
>> least the target device's queue number. It is quite similar in premise
>> to e.g: enslaving a network device to a bridge port:
>>
>> ip link set dev eth0 master br0
>
> But here br0 is absolutely required, we have to say which bridge the
> slave port should be a member of.
Right,
>
> But what good is eth0 in
>
> tc bind dev sw0p0 queue 0 dev eth0 queue 16
>
> As i said suggesting, you have to somehow verify that eth0 is the
> conduit interface sw0p0 is using. Which makes the parameter pointless.
> Determine it from the sw0p0 somehow.
I see what you mean, so something along the lines of just:
tc bind dev swp0p0 queue 0 master queue 16
without having to specify the master network device since it's implicit,
I kind of like that.
--
Florian
