On 1/30/19 11:50 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:00:57PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 1/29/19 11:36 PM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:55:37PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> -static void br_mc_disabled_update(struct net_device *dev, bool value)
>>>> +static int br_mc_disabled_update(struct net_device *dev, bool value)
>>>> {
>>>> struct switchdev_attr attr = {
>>>> .orig_dev = dev,
>>>> .id = SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_BRIDGE_MC_DISABLED,
>>>> - .flags = SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER,
>>>> + .flags = SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER | SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP,
>>>
>>> Actually, since the operation is deferred I don't think the return value
>>> from the driver is ever checked. Can you test it?
>>
>> You are right, you get a WARN() from switchdev_attr_port_set_now(), but
>> this does not propagate back to the caller, so you can still create a
>> bridge device and enslave a device successfully despite getting warnings
>> on the console.
>>
>>>
>>> I think it would be good to convert the attributes to use the switchdev
>>> notifier like commit d17d9f5e5143 ("switchdev: Replace port obj add/del
>>> SDO with a notification") did for objects. Then you can have your
>>> listener veto the operation in the same context it is happening.
>>
>> Alright, working on it. Would you do that just for the attr_set, or for
>> attr_get as well (to be symmetrical)?
>
> Yes, then we can get rid of switchdev_ops completely.
>
OK, so here is what I have so far:
https://github.com/ffainelli/linux/pull/new/switchdev-attr
although I am seeing some invalid context operations with DSA that I am
debugging. Does this look like the right way to go from your perspective?
--
Florian
