Message-ID: <20180418191315.GA1922@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 21:13:15 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, stephen@...workplumber.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/4] net: Introduce generic bypass module

Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 08:43:15PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com wrote:
>On 4/18/2018 2:25 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:13:52PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com wrote:
>> > On 4/11/2018 8:51 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > > Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:59:48PM CEST, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com wrote:
>> > > > This provides a generic interface for paravirtual drivers to listen
>> > > > for netdev register/unregister/link change events from pci ethernet
>> > > > devices with the same MAC and takeover their datapath. The notifier and
>> > > > event handling code is based on the existing netvsc implementation.
>> > > > 
>> > > > It exposes 2 sets of interfaces to the paravirtual drivers.
>> > > > 1. existing netvsc driver that uses 2 netdev model. In this model, no
>> > > > master netdev is created. The paravirtual driver registers each bypass
>> > > > instance along with a set of ops to manage the slave events.
>> > > >       bypass_master_register()
>> > > >       bypass_master_unregister()
>> > > > 2. new virtio_net based solution that uses 3 netdev model. In this model,
>> > > > the bypass module provides interfaces to create/destroy additional master
>> > > > netdev and all the slave events are managed internally.
>> > > >        bypass_master_create()
>> > > >        bypass_master_destroy()
>> > > > 
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
>> > > > ---
>> > > > include/linux/netdevice.h |  14 +
>> > > > include/net/bypass.h      |  96 ++++++
>> > > > net/Kconfig               |  18 +
>> > > > net/core/Makefile         |   1 +
>> > > > net/core/bypass.c         | 844 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > > 5 files changed, 973 insertions(+)
>> > > > create mode 100644 include/net/bypass.h
>> > > > create mode 100644 net/core/bypass.c
>> > > > 
>> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> > > > index cf44503ea81a..587293728f70 100644
>> > > > --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> > > > +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> > > > @@ -1430,6 +1430,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags {
>> > > > 	IFF_PHONY_HEADROOM		= 1<<24,
>> > > > 	IFF_MACSEC			= 1<<25,
>> > > > 	IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER		= 1<<26,
>> > > > +	IFF_BYPASS			= 1 << 27,
>> > > > +	IFF_BYPASS_SLAVE		= 1 << 28,
>> > > I wonder, why you don't follow the existing coding style... Also, please
>> > > add these to into the comment above.
>> > To avoid checkpatch warnings. If it is OK to ignore these warnings, I can switch back
>> > to the existing coding style to be consistent.
>> Please do.
>> 
>> 
>> > > 
>> > > > };
>> > > > 
>> > > > #define IFF_802_1Q_VLAN			IFF_802_1Q_VLAN
>> > > > @@ -1458,6 +1460,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags {
>> > > > #define IFF_RXFH_CONFIGURED		IFF_RXFH_CONFIGURED
>> > > > #define IFF_MACSEC			IFF_MACSEC
>> > > > #define IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER		IFF_NO_RX_HANDLER
>> > > > +#define IFF_BYPASS			IFF_BYPASS
>> > > > +#define IFF_BYPASS_SLAVE		IFF_BYPASS_SLAVE
>> > > > 
>> > > > /**
>> > > >    *	struct net_device - The DEVICE structure.
>> > > > @@ -4308,6 +4312,16 @@ static inline bool netif_is_rxfh_configured(const struct net_device *dev)
>> > > > 	return dev->priv_flags & IFF_RXFH_CONFIGURED;
>> > > > }
>> > > > 
>> > > > +static inline bool netif_is_bypass_master(const struct net_device *dev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	return dev->priv_flags & IFF_BYPASS;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +static inline bool netif_is_bypass_slave(const struct net_device *dev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	return dev->priv_flags & IFF_BYPASS_SLAVE;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > /* This device needs to keep skb dst for qdisc enqueue or ndo_start_xmit() */
>> > > > static inline void netif_keep_dst(struct net_device *dev)
>> > > > {
>> > > > diff --git a/include/net/bypass.h b/include/net/bypass.h
>> > > > new file mode 100644
>> > > > index 000000000000..86b02cb894cf
>> > > > --- /dev/null
>> > > > +++ b/include/net/bypass.h
>> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
>> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> > > > +/* Copyright (c) 2018, Intel Corporation. */
>> > > > +
>> > > > +#ifndef _NET_BYPASS_H
>> > > > +#define _NET_BYPASS_H
>> > > > +
>> > > > +#include <linux/netdevice.h>
>> > > > +
>> > > > +struct bypass_ops {
>> > > > +	int (*slave_pre_register)(struct net_device *slave_netdev,
>> > > > +				  struct net_device *bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	int (*slave_join)(struct net_device *slave_netdev,
>> > > > +			  struct net_device *bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	int (*slave_pre_unregister)(struct net_device *slave_netdev,
>> > > > +				    struct net_device *bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	int (*slave_release)(struct net_device *slave_netdev,
>> > > > +			     struct net_device *bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	int (*slave_link_change)(struct net_device *slave_netdev,
>> > > > +				 struct net_device *bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	rx_handler_result_t (*handle_frame)(struct sk_buff **pskb);
>> > > > +};
>> > > > +
>> > > > +struct bypass_master {
>> > > > +	struct list_head list;
>> > > > +	struct net_device __rcu *bypass_netdev;
>> > > > +	struct bypass_ops __rcu *ops;
>> > > > +};
>> > > > +
>> > > > +/* bypass state */
>> > > > +struct bypass_info {
>> > > > +	/* passthru netdev with same MAC */
>> > > > +	struct net_device __rcu *active_netdev;
>> > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as
>> > > it has completely different meaning that in bond for example.
>> > > I noted that in my previous review already. Please change it.
>> > I guess the issue is with only the 'active'  name. 'backup' should be fine as it also
>> > matches with the BACKUP feature bit we are adding to virtio_net.
>> I think that "backup" is also misleading. Both "active" and "backup"
>> mean a *state* of slaves. This should be named differently.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested 'stolen', but i
>> > am not too happy with it.
>> > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru'
>> No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF".
>> I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus
>> operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some
>> match.
>> 
>> But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right.
>
>We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i think
>'backup' name is consistent.

It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I
described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is
highly misleading.


>
>The intent is to restrict the 'active' netdev to be a VF. If there is a way to check that
>a PCI device is a VF in the guest kernel, we could restrict 'active' netdev to be a VF.
>
>Will look for any suggestions in the next day or two. If i don't get any, i will go
>with 'stolen'
>
><snip>
>
>
>> +
>> +static struct net_device *bypass_master_get_bymac(u8 *mac,
>> +						  struct bypass_ops **ops)
>> +{
>> +	struct bypass_master *bypass_master;
>> +	struct net_device *bypass_netdev;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&bypass_lock);
>> +	list_for_each_entry(bypass_master, &bypass_master_list, list) {
>> > > As I wrote the last time, you don't need this list, spinlock.
>> > > You can do just something like:
>> > >           for_each_net(net) {
>> > >                   for_each_netdev(net, dev) {
>> > > 			if (netif_is_bypass_master(dev)) {
>> > This function returns the upper netdev as well as the ops associated
>> > with that netdev.
>> > bypass_master_list is a list of 'struct bypass_master' that associates
>> Well, can't you have it in netdev priv?
>
>We cannot do this for 2-netdev model as there is no bypass_netdev created.

Howcome? You have no master? I don't understand..



>
>> 
>> 
>> > 'bypass_netdev' with 'bypass_ops' and gets added via bypass_master_register().
>> > We need 'ops' only to support the 2 netdev model of netvsc. ops will be
>> > NULL for 3-netdev model.
>> I see :(
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > > +		bypass_netdev = rcu_dereference(bypass_master->bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +		if (ether_addr_equal(bypass_netdev->perm_addr, mac)) {
>> > > > +			*ops = rcu_dereference(bypass_master->ops);
>> > > I don't see how rcu_dereference is ok here.
>> > > 1) I don't see rcu_read_lock taken
>> > > 2) Looks like bypass_master->ops has the same value across the whole
>> > >      existence.
>> > We hold rtnl_lock(), i think i need to change this to rtnl_dereference.
>> > Yes. ops doesn't change.
>> If it does not change, you can just access it directly.
>> 
>> 
>> > > 
>> > > > +			spin_unlock(&bypass_lock);
>> > > > +			return bypass_netdev;
>> > > > +		}
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +	spin_unlock(&bypass_lock);
>> > > > +	return NULL;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +static int bypass_slave_register(struct net_device *slave_netdev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	struct net_device *bypass_netdev;
>> > > > +	struct bypass_ops *bypass_ops;
>> > > > +	int ret, orig_mtu;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ASSERT_RTNL();
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	bypass_netdev = bypass_master_get_bymac(slave_netdev->perm_addr,
>> > > > +						&bypass_ops);
>> > > For master, could you use word "master" in the variables so it is clear?
>> > > Also, "dev" is fine instead of "netdev".
>> > > Something like "bpmaster_dev"
>> > bypass_master is of  type struct bypass_master,  bypass_netdev is of type struct net_device.
>> I was trying to point out, that "bypass_netdev" represents a "master"
>> netdev, yet it does not say master. That is why I suggested
>> "bpmaster_dev"
>> 
>> 
>> > I can change all _netdev suffixes to _dev to make the names shorter.
>> ok.
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > > +	if (!bypass_netdev)
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ret = bypass_slave_pre_register(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev,
>> > > > +					bypass_ops);
>> > > > +	if (ret != 0)
>> > > 	Just "if (ret)" will do. You have this on more places.
>> > OK.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ret = netdev_rx_handler_register(slave_netdev,
>> > > > +					 bypass_ops ? bypass_ops->handle_frame :
>> > > > +					 bypass_handle_frame, bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	if (ret != 0) {
>> > > > +		netdev_err(slave_netdev, "can not register bypass rx handler (err = %d)\n",
>> > > > +			   ret);
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev, NULL);
>> > > > +	if (ret != 0) {
>> > > > +		netdev_err(slave_netdev, "can not set master device %s (err = %d)\n",
>> > > > +			   bypass_netdev->name, ret);
>> > > > +		goto upper_link_failed;
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	slave_netdev->priv_flags |= IFF_BYPASS_SLAVE;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (netif_running(bypass_netdev)) {
>> > > > +		ret = dev_open(slave_netdev);
>> > > > +		if (ret && (ret != -EBUSY)) {
>> > > > +			netdev_err(bypass_netdev, "Opening slave %s failed ret:%d\n",
>> > > > +				   slave_netdev->name, ret);
>> > > > +			goto err_interface_up;
>> > > > +		}
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	/* Align MTU of slave with master */
>> > > > +	orig_mtu = slave_netdev->mtu;
>> > > > +	ret = dev_set_mtu(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev->mtu);
>> > > > +	if (ret != 0) {
>> > > > +		netdev_err(bypass_netdev, "unable to change mtu of %s to %u register failed\n",
>> > > > +			   slave_netdev->name, bypass_netdev->mtu);
>> > > > +		goto err_set_mtu;
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ret = bypass_slave_join(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev, bypass_ops);
>> > > > +	if (ret != 0)
>> > > > +		goto err_join;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_JOIN, slave_netdev);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	netdev_info(bypass_netdev, "bypass slave:%s registered\n",
>> > > > +		    slave_netdev->name);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +err_join:
>> > > > +	dev_set_mtu(slave_netdev, orig_mtu);
>> > > > +err_set_mtu:
>> > > > +	dev_close(slave_netdev);
>> > > > +err_interface_up:
>> > > > +	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	slave_netdev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_BYPASS_SLAVE;
>> > > > +upper_link_failed:
>> > > > +	netdev_rx_handler_unregister(slave_netdev);
>> > > > +done:
>> > > > +	return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +static int bypass_slave_pre_unregister(struct net_device *slave_netdev,
>> > > > +				       struct net_device *bypass_netdev,
>> > > > +				       struct bypass_ops *bypass_ops)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	struct net_device *backup_netdev, *active_netdev;
>> > > > +	struct bypass_info *bi;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (bypass_ops) {
>> > > > +		if (!bypass_ops->slave_pre_unregister)
>> > > > +			return -EINVAL;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +		return bypass_ops->slave_pre_unregister(slave_netdev,
>> > > > +							bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	bi = netdev_priv(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	active_netdev = rtnl_dereference(bi->active_netdev);
>> > > > +	backup_netdev = rtnl_dereference(bi->backup_netdev);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (slave_netdev != active_netdev && slave_netdev != backup_netdev)
>> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	return 0;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +static int bypass_slave_release(struct net_device *slave_netdev,
>> > > > +				struct net_device *bypass_netdev,
>> > > > +				struct bypass_ops *bypass_ops)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	struct net_device *backup_netdev, *active_netdev;
>> > > > +	struct bypass_info *bi;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (bypass_ops) {
>> > > > +		if (!bypass_ops->slave_release)
>> > > > +			return -EINVAL;
>> > > I think it would be good to make the API to the driver more strict and
>> > > have a separate set of ops for "active" and "backup" netdevices.
>> > > That should stop people thinking about extending this to more slaves in
>> > > the future.
>> > We have checks in slave_pre_register() that allows only 1 'backup' and 1
>> > 'active' slave.
>> I'm very well aware of that. I just thought that explicit ops for the
>> two slaves would make this more clear.
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > > +
>> > > > +		return bypass_ops->slave_release(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	bi = netdev_priv(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	active_netdev = rtnl_dereference(bi->active_netdev);
>> > > > +	backup_netdev = rtnl_dereference(bi->backup_netdev);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (slave_netdev == backup_netdev) {
>> > > > +		RCU_INIT_POINTER(bi->backup_netdev, NULL);
>> > > > +	} else {
>> > > > +		RCU_INIT_POINTER(bi->active_netdev, NULL);
>> > > > +		if (backup_netdev) {
>> > > > +			bypass_netdev->min_mtu = backup_netdev->min_mtu;
>> > > > +			bypass_netdev->max_mtu = backup_netdev->max_mtu;
>> > > > +		}
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	dev_put(slave_netdev);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	netdev_info(bypass_netdev, "bypass slave:%s released\n",
>> > > > +		    slave_netdev->name);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	return 0;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +int bypass_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_netdev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	struct net_device *bypass_netdev;
>> > > > +	struct bypass_ops *bypass_ops;
>> > > > +	int ret;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (!netif_is_bypass_slave(slave_netdev))
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ASSERT_RTNL();
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	bypass_netdev = bypass_master_get_bymac(slave_netdev->perm_addr,
>> > > > +						&bypass_ops);
>> > > > +	if (!bypass_netdev)
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ret = bypass_slave_pre_unregister(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev,
>> > > > +					  bypass_ops);
>> > > > +	if (ret != 0)
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	netdev_rx_handler_unregister(slave_netdev);
>> > > > +	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	slave_netdev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_BYPASS_SLAVE;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	bypass_slave_release(slave_netdev, bypass_netdev, bypass_ops);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	netdev_info(bypass_netdev, "bypass slave:%s unregistered\n",
>> > > > +		    slave_netdev->name);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +done:
>> > > > +	return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bypass_slave_unregister);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +static bool bypass_xmit_ready(struct net_device *dev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	return netif_running(dev) && netif_carrier_ok(dev);
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +static int bypass_slave_link_change(struct net_device *slave_netdev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	struct net_device *bypass_netdev, *active_netdev, *backup_netdev;
>> > > > +	struct bypass_ops *bypass_ops;
>> > > > +	struct bypass_info *bi;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (!netif_is_bypass_slave(slave_netdev))
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	ASSERT_RTNL();
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	bypass_netdev = bypass_master_get_bymac(slave_netdev->perm_addr,
>> > > > +						&bypass_ops);
>> > > > +	if (!bypass_netdev)
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (bypass_ops) {
>> > > > +		if (!bypass_ops->slave_link_change)
>> > > > +			goto done;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +		return bypass_ops->slave_link_change(slave_netdev,
>> > > > +						     bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (!netif_running(bypass_netdev))
>> > > > +		return 0;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	bi = netdev_priv(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	active_netdev = rtnl_dereference(bi->active_netdev);
>> > > > +	backup_netdev = rtnl_dereference(bi->backup_netdev);
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if (slave_netdev != active_netdev && slave_netdev != backup_netdev)
>> > > > +		goto done;
>> > > You don't need this check. "if (!netif_is_bypass_slave(slave_netdev))"
>> > > above is enough.
>> > I think we need this check to not allow events from a slave that is not
>> > attached to this master but has the same MAC.
>> Why do we need such events? Seems wrong to me.
>
>We want to avoid events from a netdev that is mis-configured with the same MAC as
>a bypass setup.
>
>>   Consider:
>> 
>> bp1      bp2
>> a1 b1    a2 b2
>> 
>> 
>> a1 and a2 have the same mac and bp1 and bp2 have the same mac.
>
>We should not have 2 bypass configs with the same MAC.
>I need to add a check in the bypass_master_register() to prevent this.

Mac can change, you would have to check in change as well. Feels odd
thought. 


>
>The above check is to avoid cases where we have
>bp1(a1, b1) with mac1
>and a2 is mis-configured with mac1, we want to avoid using a2 link events to update bp1.
>
>> Now bypass_master_get_bymac() will return always bp1 or bp2 - depending on
>> the order of creation.
>> Let's say it will return bp1. Then when we have event for a2, the
>> bypass_ops->slave_link_change is called with (a2, bp1). That is wrong.
>> 
>> 
>> You cannot use bypass_master_get_bymac() here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > > 
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	if ((active_netdev && bypass_xmit_ready(active_netdev)) ||
>> > > > +	    (backup_netdev && bypass_xmit_ready(backup_netdev))) {
>> > > > +		netif_carrier_on(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +		netif_tx_wake_all_queues(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	} else {
>> > > > +		netif_carrier_off(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +		netif_tx_stop_all_queues(bypass_netdev);
>> > > > +	}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +done:
>> > > > +	return NOTIFY_DONE;
>> > > > +}
>> > > > +
>> > > > +static bool bypass_validate_event_dev(struct net_device *dev)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > +	/* Skip parent events */
>> > > > +	if (netif_is_bypass_master(dev))
>> > > > +		return false;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	/* Avoid non-Ethernet type devices */
>> > > > +	if (dev->type != ARPHRD_ETHER)
>> > > > +		return false;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	/* Avoid Vlan dev with same MAC registering as VF */
>> > > > +	if (is_vlan_dev(dev))
>> > > > +		return false;
>> > > > +
>> > > > +	/* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */
>> > > > +	if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER))
>> > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using the
>> > > helpers netif_is_bond_master().
>> > > But what about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others?
>> > > 
>> > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need
>> > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this.
>> > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave
>> I don't see such function in the code.
>
>It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it.

Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves,
but the slaves could be added later on.

What exactly you are trying to achieve by this?


>
>> 
>> 
>> > device is not an upper dev.
>> > Can you point to your port flavours patchset? Is it upstream?
>> I sent rfc couple of weeks ago:
>> [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port_name generation
>
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists