Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: support SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_IF

[Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>]

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes:

>> -static bool dsa_slave_dev_check(struct net_device *dev)
>> -{
>> -	return dev->netdev_ops == &dsa_slave_netdev_ops;
>> -}
>
> Where is the equivalent of this happening? Where do we check that the
> interface added to the bridge is part of the switch?

Why should we check that? In this RFC, br_if.c tries to set the new
attribute to the net_device, when creating and deleting the net bridge
port. If it supports attr_set and this attribute, then we're good. Or am
I missing something?

>> -int dsa_slave_netdevice_event(struct notifier_block *unused,
>> -			      unsigned long event, void *ptr)
>> -{
>> -	struct net_device *dev;
>> -	int err = 0;
>> -
>> -	switch (event) {
>> -	case NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER:
>> -		dev = netdev_notifier_info_to_dev(ptr);
>> -		if (!dsa_slave_dev_check(dev))
>> -			goto out;
>> -
>> -		err = dsa_slave_master_changed(dev);
>> -		if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>> -			netdev_warn(dev, "failed to reflect master change\n");
>> -
>> -		break;
>> -	}
>> -
>> -out:
>> -	return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> -}
>
> How about team/bonding? We are not ready to implement it yet with the
> Marvell devices, but at some point we probably will. Won't we need the
> events then? We need to know when a switch port has been added to a
> team?
>
> Or do you think a switchdev object will be added for this case?
> Mellanox already have the ability to add switch interfaces to a team,
> and then add the team to a bridge. So we need to ensure your solution
> works for such stacked systems.

Indeed these features can be propagated through new switchdev attributes
or objects.

I think it'd be preferable to factorize the switch related operations
into the switchdev API, instead of having every single switchdev user
implement its custom (but similar) listeners and checks for global
netdev events. What do you think?

Best,
Vivien