Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villem...@prevas.dk> writes:
> It's not true that switchdev_port_obj_notify() only inspects the
> ->handled field of "struct switchdev_notifier_port_obj_info" if
> call_switchdev_blocking_notifiers() returns 0 - there's a WARN_ON()
> triggering for a non-zero return combined with ->handled not being
> true. But the real problem here is that -EOPNOTSUPP is not being
> properly handled.
>
> The wrapper functions switchdev_handle_port_obj_add() et al change a
> return value of -EOPNOTSUPP to 0, and the treatment of ->handled in
> switchdev_port_obj_notify() seems to be designed to change that back
> to -EOPNOTSUPP in case nobody actually acted on the notifier (i.e.,
> everybody returned -EOPNOTSUPP).
>
> Currently, as soon as some device down the stack passes the check_cb()
> check, ->handled gets set to true, which means that
> switchdev_port_obj_notify() cannot actually ever return -EOPNOTSUPP.
>
> This, for example, means that the detection of hardware offload
> support in the MRP code is broken - br_mrp_set_ring_role() always ends
> up setting mrp->ring_role_offloaded to 1, despite not a single
> mainline driver implementing any of the SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID*_MRP. So
> since the MRP code thinks the generation of MRP test frames has been
> offloaded, no such frames are actually put on the wire.
>
> So, continue to set ->handled true if any callback returns success or
> any error distinct from -EOPNOTSUPP. But if all the callbacks return
> -EOPNOTSUPP, make sure that ->handled stays false, so the logic in
> switchdev_port_obj_notify() can propagate that information.
>
> Fixes: f30f0601eb93 ("switchdev: Add helpers to aid traversal through lower
> devices")
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villem...@prevas.dk>
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <pe...@nvidia.com>
Thanks!
