Hi Petr,
Petr Machata <petrm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
Thanks,
Vivien
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
