Re: [PATCH net-next 6/8] net: bridge: move br_fdb_replay inside br_switchdev.c

[Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 03:58:56PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:28:23AM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > On 27/10/2021 11:16, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:27:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > >> br_fdb_replay is only called from switchdev code paths, so it makes
> > >> sense to be disabled if switchdev is not enabled in the first place.
> > >>
> > >> As opposed to br_mdb_replay and br_vlan_replay which might be turned off
> > >> depending on bridge support for multicast and VLANs, FDB support is
> > >> always on. So moving br_mdb_replay and br_vlan_replay inside
> > >> br_switchdev.c would mean adding some #ifdef's in br_switchdev.c, so we
> > >> keep those where they are.
> > > 
> > > TBH, for consistency with br_mdb_replay() and br_vlan_replay(), it would
> > > have been good to keep it where it is, but ...
> > > 
> > >>
> > >> The reason for the movement is that in future changes there will be some
> > >> code reuse between br_switchdev_fdb_notify and br_fdb_replay.
> > > 
> > > this seems like a good reason, so:
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
> > > 
> > > Nik, WDYT?
> > > 
> > 
> > Good point, it'd be nice to have them all in one place, since they all deal
> > specifically with switchdev we can move them to br_switchdev.c. We can also
> > rename them similar to other functions in br_switchdev, e.g. br_switchdev_fdb_replay
> 
> Looks like we cam move a surprisingly large amount of code from br_mdb.c
> to br_switchdev.c. The only problem is:
> 
>                                           this used to be called br_mdb_complete
>                                                          |
>                                                          v
> net/bridge/br_switchdev.c: In function ‘br_switchdev_mdb_complete’:
> net/bridge/br_switchdev.c:437:20: error: ‘struct net_bridge’ has no member named ‘multicast_lock’; did you mean ‘multicast_ctx’?
>   437 |  spin_lock_bh(&br->multicast_lock);
>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>       |                    multicast_ctx
> 
> Would you like me to introduce a set of br_multicast_lock() and
> br_multicast_unlock() helpers that have shim definitions so that they
> work when CONFIG_BRIDGE_IGMP_SNOOPING is disabled?
> 
> Anyway, I'd like to do this second part of refactoring in a second patch
> series, if you don't mind.

Ah, don't mind me, there's more. The entire &br->mdb_list is under
CONFIG_BRIDGE_IGMP_SNOOPING. So I guess my only option is to slap a big
#ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_IGMP_SNOOPING if I move these to br_switchdev.c.
I guess I might do that anyway.