From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bridge: trigger a bridge calculation upon port changes Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:12:03 -0400 Message-ID: <53619153.8020404@gmail.com> References: <1394680527-28970-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1394680527-28970-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20140315013940.GA28801@wotan.suse.de> <20140318212243.GD28471@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <20140422194313.GQ27882@wotan.suse.de> <53615752.5040106@gmail.com> <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Cong Wang , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Hemminger , netdev , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 04/30/2014 06:59 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:04:34PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> index 54d207d..dcd9378 100644 >>> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c >>> @@ -315,6 +315,8 @@ netdev_features_t br_features_recompute(struct net_bridge *br, >>> features &= ~NETIF_F_ONE_FOR_ALL; >>> >>> list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) { >>> + if (p->flags & BR_ROOT_BLOCK) >>> + continue; >>> features = netdev_increment_features(features, >>> p->dev->features, mask); >>> } >>> >> Hi Luis >> >> The hunk above isn't right. Just because you set ROOT_BLOCK on the port >> doesn't mean that you should ignore it's device features. If the device >> you just added happens to disable or enable some device offload feature, >> you should take that into account. > > OK thanks, how about this part: > > On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:22:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); >>>>>> + if (changed) >>>>>> + call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, >>>>>> + p->br->dev); >>>>>> + netdev_update_features(p->br->dev); >>>>> This is actually just a part of it. You also need to handle the sysfs changing the flag. Look at the first 2 patches in this series: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg280863.html You might need that functionality. -vlad >>>>> I think this is supposed to be in netdev event handler of br->dev >>>>> instead of here. >>>> >>>> Do you mean netdev_update_features() ? I mimic'd what was being done on >>>> br_del_if() given that root blocking is doing something similar. If >>>> we need to change something for the above then I suppose it means we need >>>> to change br_del_if() too. Let me know if you see any reason for something >>>> else. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, for me it looks like it's better to call netdev_update_features() >>> in the event handler of br->dev, rather than where calling >>> call_netdevice_notifiers(..., br->dev);. >> >> I still don't see why, in fact trying to verify this I am wondering now >> if instead we should actually fix br_features_recompute() to take into >> consideration BR_ROOT_BLOCK as below. Notice how netdev_update_features() >> is called above even if the MAC address did not change, just as is done >> on br_del_if(). There is an NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE event so would it be more >> appropriate we just call >> >> call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE, p->br->dev) >> >> for both the above then and also br_del_if()? > > Luis >