From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5/5slsfXXWt//OPcMERwQ8cNHH9hNrEvTPvoQ2aSvZQ=; b=AgMVXlzyfqMZgZx/cRdUF85GfMYtzG55L1rMzFi3yz7CM98muKtZInXf9IuNI6QIre 9uzoqB450HjJjCfyo1Ea+f7GEQSZNrOZaOwq3nyH7A7RXmYuYWRwU152Gn3Qv80fZArp Ov4o112ehLRqSoNL3rbeI5D44BFakaFgO5YMvMikouzPO3br/QYF+MR6ySRqs1Il8fgF o5xJ1GjCmPIRhK25hnWuzv7v/uQVkacPxwIbRttDmqMTBWRZsrTicNP+VMr2cV26nRPM 1l0aecV72K0lKJzegrzd5lPv16JKx1pNBW8aReVRG/8gegrfXDEgseN29n8H+u7O7sA4 6jcQ== Message-ID: <53619153.8020404@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:12:03 -0400 From: Vlad Yasevich MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1394680527-28970-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1394680527-28970-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20140315013940.GA28801@wotan.suse.de> <20140318212243.GD28471@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <20140422194313.GQ27882@wotan.suse.de> <53615752.5040106@gmail.com> <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 2/3] bridge: trigger a bridge calculation upon port changes List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Hemminger , netdev , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 04/30/2014 06:59 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:04:34PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> index 54d207d..dcd9378 100644 >>> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> @@ -315,6 +315,8 @@ netdev_features_t br_features_recompute(struct net_bridge *br, >>> features &= ~NETIF_F_ONE_FOR_ALL; >>> >>> list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) { >>> + if (p->flags & BR_ROOT_BLOCK) >>> + continue; >>> features = netdev_increment_features(features, >>> p->dev->features, mask); >>> } >>> >> Hi Luis >> >> The hunk above isn't right. Just because you set ROOT_BLOCK on the port >> doesn't mean that you should ignore it's device features. If the device >> you just added happens to disable or enable some device offload feature, >> you should take that into account. > > OK thanks, how about this part: > > On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:22:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); >>>>>> + if (changed) >>>>>> + call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, >>>>>> + p->br->dev); >>>>>> + netdev_update_features(p->br->dev); >>>>> This is actually just a part of it. You also need to handle the sysfs changing the flag. Look at the first 2 patches in this series: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg280863.html You might need that functionality. -vlad >>>>> I think this is supposed to be in netdev event handler of br->dev >>>>> instead of here. >>>> >>>> Do you mean netdev_update_features() ? I mimic'd what was being done on >>>> br_del_if() given that root blocking is doing something similar. If >>>> we need to change something for the above then I suppose it means we need >>>> to change br_del_if() too. Let me know if you see any reason for something >>>> else. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, for me it looks like it's better to call netdev_update_features() >>> in the event handler of br->dev, rather than where calling >>> call_netdevice_notifiers(..., br->dev);. >> >> I still don't see why, in fact trying to verify this I am wondering now >> if instead we should actually fix br_features_recompute() to take into >> consideration BR_ROOT_BLOCK as below. Notice how netdev_update_features() >> is called above even if the MAC address did not change, just as is done >> on br_del_if(). There is an NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE event so would it be more >> appropriate we just call >> >> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE, p->br->dev) >> >> for both the above then and also br_del_if()? > > Luis > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bridge: trigger a bridge calculation upon port changes Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:12:03 -0400 Message-ID: <53619153.8020404@gmail.com> References: <1394680527-28970-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1394680527-28970-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20140315013940.GA28801@wotan.suse.de> <20140318212243.GD28471@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <20140422194313.GQ27882@wotan.suse.de> <53615752.5040106@gmail.com> <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Hemminger , netdev , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 04/30/2014 06:59 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:04:34PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> index 54d207d..dcd9378 100644 >>> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> @@ -315,6 +315,8 @@ netdev_features_t br_features_recompute(struct net_bridge *br, >>> features &= ~NETIF_F_ONE_FOR_ALL; >>> >>> list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) { >>> + if (p->flags & BR_ROOT_BLOCK) >>> + continue; >>> features = netdev_increment_features(features, >>> p->dev->features, mask); >>> } >>> >> Hi Luis >> >> The hunk above isn't right. Just because you set ROOT_BLOCK on the port >> doesn't mean that you should ignore it's device features. If the device >> you just added happens to disable or enable some device offload feature, >> you should take that into account. > > OK thanks, how about this part: > > On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:22:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); >>>>>> + if (changed) >>>>>> + call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, >>>>>> + p->br->dev); >>>>>> + netdev_update_features(p->br->dev); >>>>> This is actually just a part of it. You also need to handle the sysfs changing the flag. Look at the first 2 patches in this series: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg280863.html You might need that functionality. -vlad >>>>> I think this is supposed to be in netdev event handler of br->dev >>>>> instead of here. >>>> >>>> Do you mean netdev_update_features() ? I mimic'd what was being done on >>>> br_del_if() given that root blocking is doing something similar. If >>>> we need to change something for the above then I suppose it means we need >>>> to change br_del_if() too. Let me know if you see any reason for something >>>> else. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, for me it looks like it's better to call netdev_update_features() >>> in the event handler of br->dev, rather than where calling >>> call_netdevice_notifiers(..., br->dev);. >> >> I still don't see why, in fact trying to verify this I am wondering now >> if instead we should actually fix br_features_recompute() to take into >> consideration BR_ROOT_BLOCK as below. Notice how netdev_update_features() >> is called above even if the MAC address did not change, just as is done >> on br_del_if(). There is an NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE event so would it be more >> appropriate we just call >> >> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE, p->br->dev) >> >> for both the above then and also br_del_if()? > > Luis > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752071AbaEAAMK (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:12:10 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:41213 "EHLO mail-qc0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751500AbaEAAMI (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:12:08 -0400 Message-ID: <53619153.8020404@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:12:03 -0400 From: Vlad Yasevich User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Cong Wang , netdev , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Stephen Hemminger , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bridge: trigger a bridge calculation upon port changes References: <1394680527-28970-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1394680527-28970-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20140315013940.GA28801@wotan.suse.de> <20140318212243.GD28471@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <20140422194313.GQ27882@wotan.suse.de> <53615752.5040106@gmail.com> <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/30/2014 06:59 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:04:34PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> index 54d207d..dcd9378 100644 >>> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> @@ -315,6 +315,8 @@ netdev_features_t br_features_recompute(struct net_bridge *br, >>> features &= ~NETIF_F_ONE_FOR_ALL; >>> >>> list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) { >>> + if (p->flags & BR_ROOT_BLOCK) >>> + continue; >>> features = netdev_increment_features(features, >>> p->dev->features, mask); >>> } >>> >> Hi Luis >> >> The hunk above isn't right. Just because you set ROOT_BLOCK on the port >> doesn't mean that you should ignore it's device features. If the device >> you just added happens to disable or enable some device offload feature, >> you should take that into account. > > OK thanks, how about this part: > > On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:22:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); >>>>>> + if (changed) >>>>>> + call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, >>>>>> + p->br->dev); >>>>>> + netdev_update_features(p->br->dev); >>>>> This is actually just a part of it. You also need to handle the sysfs changing the flag. Look at the first 2 patches in this series: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg280863.html You might need that functionality. -vlad >>>>> I think this is supposed to be in netdev event handler of br->dev >>>>> instead of here. >>>> >>>> Do you mean netdev_update_features() ? I mimic'd what was being done on >>>> br_del_if() given that root blocking is doing something similar. If >>>> we need to change something for the above then I suppose it means we need >>>> to change br_del_if() too. Let me know if you see any reason for something >>>> else. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, for me it looks like it's better to call netdev_update_features() >>> in the event handler of br->dev, rather than where calling >>> call_netdevice_notifiers(..., br->dev);. >> >> I still don't see why, in fact trying to verify this I am wondering now >> if instead we should actually fix br_features_recompute() to take into >> consideration BR_ROOT_BLOCK as below. Notice how netdev_update_features() >> is called above even if the MAC address did not change, just as is done >> on br_del_if(). There is an NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE event so would it be more >> appropriate we just call >> >> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE, p->br->dev) >> >> for both the above then and also br_del_if()? > > Luis >