On 22/11/2018 18:04, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> int br_boolopt_get(const struct net_bridge *br, enum br_boolopt_id opt)
>> {
>> - int optval = 0;
>> -
>> switch (opt) {
>> + case BR_BOOLOPT_NO_LL_LEARN:
>> + return br_opt_get(br, BROPT_NO_LL_LEARN);
>> default:
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> - return optval;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> It seems like 1/2 of that change belongs in the previous patch.
>
Yes, I could squash this into patch 01.
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
>> @@ -328,6 +328,27 @@ static ssize_t flush_store(struct device *d,
>> }
>> static DEVICE_ATTR_WO(flush);
>>
>> +static ssize_t no_linklocal_learn_show(struct device *d,
>> + struct device_attribute *attr,
>> + char *buf)
>> +{
>> + struct net_bridge *br = to_bridge(d);
>> + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", br_boolopt_get(br, BR_BOOLOPT_NO_LL_LEARN));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int set_no_linklocal_learn(struct net_bridge *br, unsigned long val)
>> +{
>> + return br_boolopt_toggle(br, BR_BOOLOPT_NO_LL_LEARN, !!val);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static ssize_t no_linklocal_learn_store(struct device *d,
>> + struct device_attribute *attr,
>> + const char *buf, size_t len)
>> +{
>> + return store_bridge_parm(d, buf, len, set_no_linklocal_learn);
>> +}
>> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(no_linklocal_learn);
>
> I thought we where trying to move away from sysfs? Do we need to add
> new options here? It seems like forcing people to use iproute2 for
> newer options is a good way to get people to convert to iproute2.
>
Being consistent, all of the bridge options are exported via sysfs. If we start
ignoring it now it'll be confusing.
> Andrew
>
