[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7f907d89-542f-2652-7cf6-ea196f754eac@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:29:25 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>,
Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 07/11] net: dsa: kill .port_egress_floods
overengineering
On 2/9/21 12:37 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 05:19:32PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
>>
>> The bridge offloads the port flags through a single bit mask using
>> switchdev, which among others, contains learning and flooding settings.
>>
>> The commit 57652796aa97 ("net: dsa: add support for bridge flags")
>> missed one crucial aspect of the SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS API
>> when designing the API one level lower, towards the drivers.
>> This is that the bitmask of passed brport flags never has more than one
>> bit set at a time. On the other hand, the prototype passed to the driver
>> is .port_egress_floods(int port, bool unicast, bool multicast), which
>> configures two flags at a time.
>>
>> DSA currently checks if .port_egress_floods is implemented, and if it
>> is, reports both BR_FLOOD and BR_MCAST_FLOOD as supported. So the driver
>> has no choice if it wants to inform the bridge that, for example, it
>> can't configure unicast flooding independently of multicast flooding -
>> the DSA mid layer is standing in the way. Or the other way around: a new
>> driver wants to start configuring BR_BCAST_FLOOD separately, but what do
>> we do with the rest, which only support unicast and multicast flooding?
>> Do we report broadcast flooding configuration as supported for those
>> too, and silently do nothing?
>>
>> Secondly, currently DSA deems the driver too dumb to deserve knowing that
>> a SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_BRIDGE_MROUTER attribute was offloaded, because it
>> just calls .port_egress_floods for the CPU port. When we'll add support
>> for the plain SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_MROUTER, that will become a real
>> problem because the flood settings will need to be held statefully in
>> the DSA middle layer, otherwise changing the mrouter port attribute will
>> impact the flooding attribute. And that's _assuming_ that the underlying
>> hardware doesn't have anything else to do when a multicast router
>> attaches to a port than flood unknown traffic to it. If it does, there
>> will need to be a dedicated .port_set_mrouter anyway.
>>
>> Lastly, we have DSA drivers that have a backlink into a pure switchdev
>> driver (felix -> ocelot). It seems reasonable that the other switchdev
>> drivers should not have to suffer from the oddities of DSA overengineering,
>> so keeping DSA a pass-through layer makes more sense there.
>>
>> To simplify the brport flags situation we just delete .port_egress_floods
>> and we introduce a simple .port_bridge_flags which is passed to the
>> driver. Also, the logic from dsa_port_mrouter is removed and a
>> .port_set_mrouter is created.
>>
>> Functionally speaking, we simply move the calls to .port_egress_floods
>> one step lower, in the two drivers that implement it: mv88e6xxx and b53,
>> so things should work just as before.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
>> ---
>
> Florian, Andrew, what are your opinions on this patch? I guess what I
> dislike the most about .port_egress_floods is that it combines the
> unicast and multicast settings in the same callback, for no good
> apparent reason. So that, at the very least, needs to change.
> What do you prefer between having:
> .port_set_unicast_floods
> .port_set_multicast_floods
> .port_set_broadcast_floods
> .port_set_learning
> and a single:
> .port_bridge_flags
Tough one, from a driver writer perspective the fewer callbacks to wire
up the better, but from a framework perspective it is certainly easier
to audit drivers if there is a callback for a narrow and specific use
case. My vote goes for the single callback, that would lead to an easier
patch set to review IMHO.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists