From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Feldman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] switchdev: add swdev ops Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:56:34 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1426400107-6072-1-git-send-email-sfeldma@gmail.com> <20150315170355.GJ2043@nanopsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Netdev , Roopa Prabhu To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]:36113 "EHLO mail-qg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751255AbbCOR4e (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:56:34 -0400 Received: by qgg60 with SMTP id 60so23753890qgg.3 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:56:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150315170355.GJ2043@nanopsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 07:15:02AM CET, sfeldma@gmail.com wrote: >>From: Scott Feldman >> >>Per discussions at netconf, move switchdev ndo ops to a new swdev_ops to >>keep ndo namespace clean and maintain switchdev-related ops into one place. >> >>There are no functional changes here; just shuffling ops around for better >>organization. > > Hmm, I'm not sure this is the right approach. I think we do not need > only switchdev ops to be pushed out. There are many more ndos that could > be pushed out as well. What I'm thinking about is some more generic ndo > struct partitioning. Have to think about the actual implementation some more. I couldn't see a way to make a more generic ndo struct without casting args to void * and back, or using a big overlay union. I may be missing your idea; interested in what you come up with. In the meantime, can we go with this simple partitioning? -scott