From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Petr Machata <petrm@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: bridge: Notify about bridge VLANs
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 11:20:40 +0300
Message-ID: <wihsh6cfaxz.fsf@dev-r-vrt-156.mtr.labs.mlnx>
References: <cover.1527173527.git.petrm@mellanox.com>
 <b0b6b46a239eb330d722cea89137ab6ec5bae6e3.1527173527.git.petrm@mellanox.com>
 <877enrzp42.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
 <wihwovrfz62.fsf@dev-r-vrt-156.mtr.labs.mlnx>
 <87y3g6mpr2.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, f.fainelli@gmail.com, andrew@lunn.ch,
 nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, idosch@mellanox.com, jiri@mellanox.com,
 razvan.stefanescu@nxp.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, davem@davemloft.net
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
Return-path: <driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org>
In-Reply-To: <87y3g6mpr2.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
 (Vivien Didelot's message of "Sat, 26 May 2018 10:54:25 -0400")
List-Unsubscribe: <http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/options/driverdev-devel>,
 <mailto:driverdev-devel-request@linuxdriverproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:driverdev-devel-request@linuxdriverproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel>,
 <mailto:driverdev-devel-request@linuxdriverproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org
Sender: "devel" <driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org>
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> writes:

> Hi Petr,
>
> Petr Machata <petrm@mellanox.com> writes:
>
>> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> writes:
>>
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		err = br_switchdev_port_obj_add(dev, v->vid, flags);
>>>> +		if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>>>> +			goto out;
>>>>  	}
>>>
>>> Except that br_switchdev_port_obj_add taking vid and flags arguments
>>> seems confusing to me, the change looks good:
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Both VID and flags are sent with the
>> notification, so they need to be passed on to the function somehow. Do
>> you have a counterproposal for the API?
>
> I'm only questioning the code organization here, not the functional
> aspect which I do agree with. What I'm saying is that you name a new
> switchdev helper br_switchdev_port_OBJ_add, which takes VLAN arguments
> (vid and flags.) How would you call another eventual helper taking MDB
> arguments, br_switchdev_port_OBJ_add again? So something like
> br_switchdev_port_VLAN_add would be more intuitive.
>
> At the same time there's an effort to centralize all switchdev helpers
> of the bridge layer (i.e. the software -> hardware bridge calls) into
> net/bridge/br_switchdev.c, so that file would be more adequate.
>
> You may discard my comments but I think it'd be beneficial to us all to
> finally keep a bit of consistency in that bridge layer code.

Nope, those are reasonable points. I'll post a v2 along those lines.

Thanks,
Petr