[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE4R7bCgccSSgKqjW_EVm3s=Q5aAx39a9-dqRQpgk7K_tKWkqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:03:52 -0700
From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/18] switchdev: remove unused NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, March 30, 2015, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:38 AM, roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> > On 3/30/15, 1:40 AM, sfeldma@...il.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
>> >>
>> >> Flag is no longer needed so remove it. Using the attr get/set recurse
>> >> algo
>> >> obsoletes the flag. Setting the flag on bond/team interface, even when
>> >> the
>> >> consitient member ports didn't have flag set was confusing.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > The flag was there to avoid the recursive lowerdev walk where possible.
>> > bond will have the flag if any one slave can have it. You don't walk the
>> > bond if it does not have the flag.
>>
>> Ok, I see. I'll remove this patch from set. Should I put the
>> NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD check in the get/set attr wrappers?
>
>
> would be nice. Thanks scott.
Ok, it's back. I'll send v2 tonight which addresses the review
comments and solves the vlan issues once and for all (I hope).
--
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