Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 02:14:47PM CET, idosch@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09:52AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patch series finishes by the removal of switchdev_ops. To get there
>> we convert the existing switchdev_port_attr_{set,get} switchdev_ops to
>> use a blocking notifier, thus making it consistent with how the objects
>> are pushed to the switchdev enabled devices.
>>
>> Please review and let me know what you think!
>>
>> David, I would like to get Ido's feedback on this to make sure I did not
>> miss something, thank you!
>
>Hi Florian,
>
>Why do you still keep switchdev_port_attr_get()? I believe we can remove
>it and simplify things.
>
>After your recent patchset to remove 'PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS', the only
>remaining user of get() is 'PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS_SUPPORT'. It can be
>converted to a blocking set() with 'PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS' (or a similar
>name).
Let's do that in a follow-up.
>
>I would like to make sure we're in sync with regards to future changes.
>After this patchset to get rid of switchdev_ops we can continue to
>completely removing switchdev (I believe Jiri approves). The
Yes.
>prepare-commit model is not really needed and the two switchdev
>notification chains can be split into bridge and vxlan specific chains.
>
>Notifications sent in an atomic context can be handled by drivers
>directly in this context. Similar to how FDB/route/neighbour are
>handled. It will really simplify things. No need for the defer flag
>anymore and tricks like 'PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS_SUPPORT' and
>'PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS'. In the atomic context the driver can veto the
>requested bridge flags, but program the device from a blocking context
>(using a workqueue).
Sounds good to me.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
