From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:50:21 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger Message-ID: <20120727085021.1d4ef810@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> In-Reply-To: <1343403484-29347-5-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> References: <1343403484-29347-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <1343403484-29347-5-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 4/7] bridge: call NETDEV_RELEASE notifier in br_del_if() List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cong Wang Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 23:38:01 +0800 Cong Wang wrote: > When a bridge interface deletes its underlying ports, it should > notify netconsole too, like what bonding interface does. > > Cc: "David S. Miller" > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang > --- > net/bridge/br_if.c | 1 + > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c > index e1144e1..d243914 100644 > --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c > +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c > @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ int br_del_if(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_device *dev) > if (!p || p->br != br) > return -EINVAL; > > + call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_RELEASE, br->dev); > del_nbp(p); > > spin_lock_bh(&br->lock); Since you can have multiple ports attached to the bridge, this doesn't seem correct. Don't you want the netconsole to keep going on the other ports of the bridge? What exactly is the problem with having netconsole persist?