From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org 65EF660BA2 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp3.osuosl.org B1CDD60AC9 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=corigine.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-corigine-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=bDwJZz2RfClW5Xxb06EIOhVzOZhHDzlBqC/0o5hd5VE=; b=R1k9FAAMkDjOiA5HPXtp0+mH7wyZZRXn7FH3iW8AYKVVNFzmBSMvU7un/UIZPc04nbvZkLOl9zhL/RC83/YG/mIedLsCKkK7Lg7v6Mh/6qaNL5JGpEtHk84pe2e9B16GvqIIWCplU6j9ixpA4YZQXujVhT40btrmTTAvu/kKw3o= Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 09:12:41 +0100 From: Simon Horman Message-ID: References: <20230130173429.3577450-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com> <20230130173429.3577450-6-netdev@kapio-technology.com> <9b12275969a204739ccfab972d90f20f@kapio-technology.com> <20230203204422.4wrhyathxfhj6hdt@skbuf> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230203204422.4wrhyathxfhj6hdt@skbuf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implementation of dynamic ATU entries List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: Andrew Lunn , Alexandre Belloni , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Kurt Kanzenbach , Eric Dumazet , netdev@kapio-technology.com, Ivan Vecera , Florian Fainelli , "moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" , Russell King , Roopa Prabhu , kuba@kernel.org, Paolo Abeni , =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= , Christian Marangi , Woojung Huh , Landen Chao , Jiri Pirko , Hauke Mehrtens , Sean Wang , DENG Qingfang , Claudiu Manoil , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" , Matthias Brugger , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, open list , "maintainer:MICROCHIP KSZ SERIES ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER" , "open list:RENESAS RZ/N1 A5PSW SWITCH DRIVER" , davem@davemloft.net On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:44:22PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:20:22AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > > else if (someflag) > > > dosomething(); > > > > > > For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive, > > > as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but > > > that can change at some time of course. > > > > Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would > > be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever > > approach you prefer is fine by me. > > The model we have for unsupported bits in the SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS > and SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS handlers is essentially this: > > if (flags & ~(supported_flag_mask)) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > if (flags & supported_flag_1) > ... > > if (flags & supported_flag_2) > ... > > I suppose applying this model here would address Simon's extensibility concern. Yes, that is the model I had in mind.