David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:13:43 +0800 > >> Matt Mackall wrote: >>> Seems like a lot of interface for something to be used by only a >>> couple >>> core drivers. Hopefully Dave has an opinion here. >>> >> Yeah, I worry about this too, maybe we can group those methods >> for netpoll together into another struct, and just put a pointer >> here? > > This looks like it's tackled at the wrong layer, to be honest. > > Teaching all of these layers about eachother's states is > going to end up being a nightmare in the end. > > All of this "where is the npinfo" business can be handled > generically in net/core/dev.c I think, with none of these > callbacks. > > For example, something like "if dev lacks ->npinfo, check > it's master". This is a good point! I haven't tried but certainly this is worthy a try. Ideally those callbacks can be all removed, but I don't know if this is true practically. ;) I will try. > > Another thing, I wouldn't iterate over all devices, like I > see in the bonding poll controller method. Just whichever > one supports netpoll you see first, use it and exit > immediately. Don't send it to every single port, I can't > see how that might be desirable or useful. Yeah, for bonding case, probably. But for bridge case, I think we still need to check all, right? Thanks! _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
