From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 1/2] vxlan: Notify drivers for listening UDP port
 changes
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:42:58 +0100
Message-ID: <1377801778.5372.8.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com>
References: <1377780878-32384-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@intel.com>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <gospo@redhat.com>,
	<sassmann@redhat.com>,
	"John Fastabend" <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:36732 "EHLO
	webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754286Ab3H2SnH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:43:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1377780878-32384-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 05:54 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> From: Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@intel.com>
> 
> This patch adds two more ndo ops: ndo_add_rx_vxlan_port() and
> ndo_del_rx_vxlan_port().
[...]
> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> @@ -948,6 +948,18 @@ struct netdev_phys_port_id {
>   *	Called to get ID of physical port of this device. If driver does
>   *	not implement this, it is assumed that the hw is not able to have
>   *	multiple net devices on single physical port.
> + *
> + * int (*ndo_add_vxlan_port)(struct  net_device *dev,
> + *			      __u16 port);
> + *	Called by vxlan to notiy a driver about the UDP port that vxlan
> + *	is listnening to. It is called only when a new port starts listening.
> + *	The operation is protected by the vxlan_net->sock_lock.
> + *
> + * int (*ndo_del_vxlan_port)(struct  net_device *dev,
> + *			    __u16 port);
> + *	Called by vxlan to notify the driver about a UDP port of vxlan
> + *	that is not listening anymore. The operation is protected by
> + *	the vxlan_net->sock_lock.
>   */
>  struct net_device_ops {
>  	int			(*ndo_init)(struct net_device *dev);
> @@ -1078,6 +1090,10 @@ struct net_device_ops {
>  						      bool new_carrier);
>  	int			(*ndo_get_phys_port_id)(struct net_device *dev,
>  							struct netdev_phys_port_id *ppid);
> +	int			(*ndo_add_vxlan_port)(struct  net_device *dev,
> +						      __u16 port);
> +	int			(*ndo_del_vxlan_port)(struct  net_device *dev,
> +						      __u16 port);
>  };
[...]

I notice these are defined to return int, but the callers don't check
the return value.  Should they return void or do the callers need some
error handling?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.