Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 06:45:56PM CEST, kuba@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:51:51 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Currently, the info about linkage from netdev to the related >> devlink_port instance is done using ndo_get_devlink_port(). >> This is not sufficient, as it is up to the driver to implement it and >> some of them don't do that. Also it leads to a lot of unnecessary >> boilerplate code in all the drivers. >> >> Instead of that, introduce a possibility for driver to expose this >> relationship by new SET_NETDEV_DEVLINK_PORT macro which stores it into >> dev->devlink_port. It is ensured by the driver init/fini flows that >> the devlink_port pointer does not change during the netdev lifetime. >> Devlink port is always registered before netdev register and >> unregistered after netdev unregister. >> >> Benefit from this linkage setup and remove explicit calls from driver >> to devlink_port_type_eth_set() and clear(). Many of the driver >> didn't use it correctly anyway. Let the devlink.c to track associated >> netdev events and adjust type and type pointer accordingly. Also >> use this events to to keep track on ifname change and remove RTNL lock >> taking from devlink_nl_port_fill(). >> >> Finally, remove the ndo_get_devlink_port() ndo which is no longer used >> and expose devlink_port handle as a new netdev netlink attribute to the >> user. That way, during the ifname->devlink_port lookup, userspace app >> does not have to dump whole devlink port list and instead it can just >> do a simple RTM_GETLINK query. > >Would you be okay if we deferred until 6.2? > >It's technically past the deadline and some odd driver could regress. Sure.
