From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next] switchdev: call bridge setlink/dellink ndos recursively Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:37:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20150316173727.GK2058@nanopsycho.orion> References: <1426515774-21038-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <5506F4DF.30700@cumulusnetworks.com> <20150316163638.GI2058@nanopsycho.orion> <55070DB6.7020504@cumulusnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, sfeldma@gmail.com To: roopa Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:35880 "EHLO mail-wg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754638AbbCPRhb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:37:31 -0400 Received: by wgra20 with SMTP id a20so45992494wgr.3 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55070DB6.7020504@cumulusnetworks.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 06:07:02PM CET, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >On 3/16/15, 9:36 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:21:03PM CET, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >>>On 3/16/15, 7:22 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>There has been a discussion about if it's better to let masters to >>>>propagate call down themself or if its better just blindly go down and >>>>try to call ndo on every lower netdev. Turned out that more people (me >>>>not included) like the second option better. >>>> >>>>This patch changes bridge setlink/dellink in that direction. >>>>Sorry Roopa for forcing you to do it the way I liked initially. >>>> >>>>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko >>>no worries. thanks for submitting the patch Jiri. >>> >>>One thing though (Which i also mentioned in one of the threads on this), >>>the below command will not work with layered devices with the below patch. >>>Because 'self' commands will directly try to find the switch port driver from >>>rtnetlink.c and they dont use the switch dev api. >>> >>>bridge link set dev bond0 learning off self >>> >>> >>>The code that currently exists in the tree with bond and team supporting the >>>op >>>will actually work. >>Hmm, interesting. >> >>DaveM, this might be a good argument for call propagation. What do you >>think? >> >For the stp api, it is not...because stp is run in the bridge driver and >always involves the switchdev api. > >lets hold on to in-tree getlink/setlink before we find a better way. Okay. Makes sense. > >my 2c