From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
"bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for unimplemented mrp state
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:27:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210118212735.okoov5ndybszd6m5@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210118202036.wk2fuwa3hysg4dmj@soft-dev3.localdomain>
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:20:36PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 01/18/2021 19:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:56:18PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > The reason was to stay away from STP, because you can't run these two
> > > protocols at the same time. Even though in SW, we reuse port's state.
> > > In our driver(which is not upstreamed), we currently implement
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE and just call the
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_STP_STATE.
> >
> > And isn't Rasmus's approach reasonable, in that it allows unmodified
> > switchdev drivers to offload MRP port states without creating
> > unnecessary code churn?
>
> I am sorry but I don't see this as the correct solution. In my opinion,
> I would prefer to have 3 extra lines in the driver and have a better
> view of what is happening. Than having 2 calls in the driver for
> different protocols.
I think the question boils down to: is a MRP-unaware driver expected to
work with the current bridge MRP code?
> If it is not a problem to have STP calls when you configure the MRP,
> then why not just remove SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE?
Good question, why not?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-18 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-18 18:13 [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for unimplemented mrp state Rasmus Villemoes
2021-01-18 18:56 ` Horatiu Vultur
2021-01-18 19:46 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-01-18 20:20 ` Horatiu Vultur
2021-01-18 21:27 ` Vladimir Oltean [this message]
2021-01-19 8:32 ` Horatiu Vultur
2021-01-19 15:52 ` Andrew Lunn
2021-01-19 20:59 ` Horatiu Vultur
2021-01-25 21:36 ` Rasmus Villemoes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210118212735.okoov5ndybszd6m5@skbuf \
--to=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=horatiu.vultur@microchip.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nikolay@nvidia.com \
--cc=rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk \
--cc=roopa@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox