[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1377801778.5372.8.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:42:58 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>,
Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <gospo@...hat.com>,
<sassmann@...hat.com>,
"John Fastabend" <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 1/2] vxlan: Notify drivers for listening UDP port
changes
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 05:54 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> From: Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>
>
> This patch adds two more ndo ops: ndo_add_rx_vxlan_port() and
> ndo_del_rx_vxlan_port().
[...]
> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
> @@ -948,6 +948,18 @@ struct netdev_phys_port_id {
> * Called to get ID of physical port of this device. If driver does
> * not implement this, it is assumed that the hw is not able to have
> * multiple net devices on single physical port.
> + *
> + * int (*ndo_add_vxlan_port)(struct net_device *dev,
> + * __u16 port);
> + * Called by vxlan to notiy a driver about the UDP port that vxlan
> + * is listnening to. It is called only when a new port starts listening.
> + * The operation is protected by the vxlan_net->sock_lock.
> + *
> + * int (*ndo_del_vxlan_port)(struct net_device *dev,
> + * __u16 port);
> + * Called by vxlan to notify the driver about a UDP port of vxlan
> + * that is not listening anymore. The operation is protected by
> + * the vxlan_net->sock_lock.
> */
> struct net_device_ops {
> int (*ndo_init)(struct net_device *dev);
> @@ -1078,6 +1090,10 @@ struct net_device_ops {
> bool new_carrier);
> int (*ndo_get_phys_port_id)(struct net_device *dev,
> struct netdev_phys_port_id *ppid);
> + int (*ndo_add_vxlan_port)(struct net_device *dev,
> + __u16 port);
> + int (*ndo_del_vxlan_port)(struct net_device *dev,
> + __u16 port);
> };
[...]
I notice these are defined to return int, but the callers don't check
the return value. Should they return void or do the callers need some
error handling?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists