Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 05:56:19PM CEST, vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com wrote: >On Oct. Saturday 10 (41) 09:04 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 04:53:52AM CEST, sfel...@gmail.com wrote: >> >On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Premkumar Jonnala <pjonn...@broadcom.com> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: sfel...@gmail.com [mailto:sfel...@gmail.com] >> >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 7:53 AM >> >>> To: netdev@vger.kernel.org >> >>> Cc: da...@davemloft.net; j...@resnulli.us; siva.mannem....@gmail.com; >> >>> Premkumar Jonnala; step...@networkplumber.org; >> >>> ro...@cumulusnetworks.com; and...@lunn.ch; f.faine...@gmail.com; >> >>> vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com >> >>> Subject: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time >> >>> down >> >>> to switchdev >> >>> >> >>> From: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> >>> 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 <sfel...@gmail.com> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> > >> ><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. >> >> Scott, can you tell us how do you want to address this? I like the >> current implementation. > >Scott, didn't you have a plan to add a struct device for the parent of >switchdev ports? > >I think it would be good to introduce such device with an helper to >retrieve this upper parent, and move the switchdev ops to this guy. > >So switchdev drivers may implement such API calls: > > .obj_add(struct device *swdev, struct switchdev_obj *obj); > > .port_obj_add(struct device *swdev, struct net_device *port, > struct switchdev_obj *obj); > >Then switchdev code may have a parent API and the current port API may >look like this: > > int switchdev_port_obj_add(struct net_device *dev, > struct switchdev_obj *obj) > { > struct device *swdev = switchdev_get_parent(dev); > int err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > if (swdev && swdev->switchdev_ops && > swdev->switchdev_ops->port_obj_add) > err = swdev->switchdev_ops->port_obj_add(swdev, dev, obj); > > return err; > }
Fro the record, I don't see any reason for this "device". It would just introduce unnecessary complexicity. So far, we are fine without it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
