On 4/20/20 11:54 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 07:29:15PM CEST, dsahern@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 4/20/20 8:01 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:54:17AM CEST, maorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> Add new ndo to get the xmit slave of master device.
>>>> User should release the slave when it's not longer needed.
>>>> When slave selection method is based on hash, then the user can ask to
>>>> get the xmit slave assume all the slaves can transmit by setting the
>>>> LAG_FLAGS_HASH_ALL_SLAVES bit in the flags argument.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/netdevice.h | 3 +++
>>>> include/net/lag.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> index 130a668049ab..e8852f3ad0b6 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> @@ -1389,6 +1389,9 @@ struct net_device_ops {
>>>> struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
>>>> int (*ndo_del_slave)(struct net_device *dev,
>>>> struct net_device *slave_dev);
>>>> + struct net_device* (*ndo_xmit_get_slave)(struct net_device *master_dev,
>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>> + u16 flags);
>>>
>>> Please adjust the name to:
>>> ndo_get_lag_xmit_slave
>>
>> I disagree. There are multiple master devices and no reason to have a
>> LAG specific get_slave.
>
> Btw, did you notice that Maor is passing "lag" named values in the flags?
>
yes. I disagree with enum name, but having LAG in the name of a flag is
fine. To me that is the right place for a LAG specific request of a
generic ndo in core code.
