On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Premkumar Jonnala <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 7:53 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>> Premkumar Jonnala; [email protected];
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
>> [email protected]
>> Subject: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time down
>> to switchdev
>>
>> From: Scott Feldman <[email protected]>
>>
>> Use SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP to skip over ports in bridge that don't
>> support setting ageing_time (or setting bridge attrs in general).
>>
>> If push fails, don't update ageing_time in bridge and return err to user.
>>
>> If push succeeds, update ageing_time in bridge and run gc_timer now to
>> recalabrate when to run gc_timer next, based on new ageing_time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
<snip>
>> +int br_set_ageing_time(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ageing_time)
>> +{
>> + struct switchdev_attr attr = {
>> + .id = SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_BRIDGE_AGEING_TIME,
>> + .flags = SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP,
>> + .u.ageing_time = ageing_time,
>> + };
>> + unsigned long t = clock_t_to_jiffies(ageing_time);
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + if (t < BR_MIN_AGEING_TIME || t > BR_MAX_AGEING_TIME)
>> + return -ERANGE;
>> +
>> + err = switchdev_port_attr_set(br->dev, &attr);
>
> A thought - given that the ageing time is not a per-bridge-port attr, why are
> we using a "port based api"
> to pass the attribute down? May be I'm missing something here?
I think Florian raised the same point earlier. Sigh, I think this
should be addressed....v4 coming soon...thanks guys for keeping the
standard high.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
