[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210616005453.cuu3ocedgfcafa7o@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 03:54:53 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@...ision.eu>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mickey Rachamim <mickeyr@...vell.com>,
Serhiy Boiko <serhiy.boiko@...ision.eu>,
Volodymyr Mytnyk <vmytnyk@...vell.com>,
Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: marvell: Implement TC flower offload
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 03:54:43PM +0300, Vadym Kochan wrote:
> +static int prestera_port_set_features(struct net_device *dev,
> + netdev_features_t features)
> +{
> + netdev_features_t oper_features = dev->features;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = prestera_port_handle_feature(dev, features, NETIF_F_HW_TC,
> + prestera_port_feature_hw_tc);
Why do you even make NETIF_F_HW_TC able to be toggled and not just fixed
to "on" in dev->features? If I understand correctly, you could then delete
a bunch of refcounting code whose only purpose is to allow that feature
to be disabled per port.
> +
> + if (err) {
> + dev->features = oper_features;
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists