Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] bonding: add netlink attributes to slave link dev

Jiri Pirko
2014-01-22T08:22:19Z

Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:42:58PM CET, sfeldma@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>
>On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>
>> Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:36:58PM CET, sfeldma@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:34 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> + if (rtnl_bond_slave_fill(skb, dev))
>>>>> + goto nla_put_failure;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> I must say I do not like this at all. This should be done in a generic
>>>> way. By a callback registered by bonding and possibly other master-slave
>>>> device types.
>>>
>>> The bond was registered with the ndo_get_slave op. ndo_get_slave could be used for other master-slave device types. I’ll agree that rtnl_bond_slave_fill() could have been written more generically. Is that the objection?
>>
>> I think is should be done rather in rtnl_link_ops. It's the natural point
>> for this ops. I have patchset prepared. Will send it very soon.
>
>Ok, cool.
>
>Also, right now I have IFLA_SLAVE as a nest for IFLA_SLAVE_xxx attrs. Do you think we should have a two-layer nest so we can capture other master-slave devices rather than just bond slaves? I.e.:
>
> IFLA_SLAVE
> IFLA_BOND_SLAVE
> IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_xxx
> IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_yyy
> IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_zzz
> IFLA_FOO_SLAVE // FOO is some other non-bond master
> IFLA_FOO_SLAVE_xxx
> IFLA_FOO_SLAVE_yyy
> IFLA_FOO_SLAVE_zzz
>
>(Of course, slave wouldn’t be bond and foo slave at same time).

I would rather do this in LINKINFO nest the same way IFLA_BOND_* are
done. Please see following patch:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/313156/

>
>-scott