lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 7/8] net: switchdev: Replace port attr set SDO with a notification
Date
Le 2/23/19 à 2:32 AM, Ido Schimmel a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 03:59:25PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Drop switchdev_ops.switchdev_port_attr_set. Drop the uses of this field
>> from all clients, which were migrated to use switchdev notification in
>> the previous patches.
>>
>> Add a new function switchdev_port_attr_notify() that sends the switchdev
>> notifications SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET and takes care, depending on
>> SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER to call the blocking (process) or non-blocking
>> (atomic) notifier chain accordingly.
>>
>> Drop __switchdev_port_attr_set() and update switchdev_port_attr_set()
>> likewise.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 96 +++++++++++----------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> index 94400f5b8e07..a1f16836ef89 100644
>> --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> @@ -174,81 +174,35 @@ static int switchdev_deferred_enqueue(struct net_device *dev,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -/**
>> - * switchdev_port_attr_get - Get port attribute
>
> Hmm, why do you remove it here? Can't you remove it in a separate patch?
> I thought we already got rid of it :p

Yes it should have been removed, looks like my previous series did not
that, I will send that separately.

>
>> - *
>> - * @dev: port device
>> - * @attr: attribute to get
>> - */
>> -int switchdev_port_attr_get(struct net_device *dev, struct switchdev_attr *attr)
>> +static int switchdev_port_attr_notify(enum switchdev_notifier_type nt,
>> + struct net_device *dev,
>> + const struct switchdev_attr *attr,
>> + struct switchdev_trans *trans)
>> {
>> - const struct switchdev_ops *ops = dev->switchdev_ops;
>> - struct net_device *lower_dev;
>> - struct list_head *iter;
>> - struct switchdev_attr first = {
>> - .id = SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_UNDEFINED
>> - };
>> - int err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + int err;
>> + int rc;
>>
>> - if (ops && ops->switchdev_port_attr_get)
>> - return ops->switchdev_port_attr_get(dev, attr);
>> + struct switchdev_notifier_port_attr_info attr_info = {
>> + .attr = attr,
>> + .trans = trans,
>> + .handled = false,
>> + };
>>
>> - if (attr->flags & SWITCHDEV_F_NO_RECURSE)
>> + if (attr & SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER)
>> + rc = call_switchdev_blocking_notifiers(nt, dev,
>> + &attr_info.info, NULL);
>> + else
>> + rc = call_switchdev_notifiers(nt, dev, &attr_info.info, NULL);
>
> I don't believe this is needed. You're calling this function from
> switchdev_port_attr_set_now() which is always called from process
> context. switchdev_port_attr_set() takes care of that. Similar to
> switchdev_port_obj_add().

Except for net/bridge/br_switchdev.c when we check the bridge port's
flags support with PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS. In that case we are executing from
the caller (atomic) context and we can't defer otherwise that trumps the
whole idea of being able to do a quick check and return that to the
caller that we cannot support specific flags. How would you recommend
approaching that?
--
Florian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-24 17:49    [W:0.089 / U:5.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site