netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpsw: add switchdev support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 16:32:34 +0300
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, grygorii.strashko@...com,
        ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org, nsekhar@...com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        ivecera@...hat.com, francois.ozog@...aro.org, yogeshs@...com,
        spatton@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpsw: add switchdev support

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 03:12:29PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Device tree is supposed to describe the hardware. Using that hardware
> in different ways is not something you should describe in DT.
> 
The new switchdev mode is applied with a .config option in the kernel. What you
see is pre-existing code, so i am not sure if i should change it in this
patchset. Your point is valid though and we are on the same page.
> There are also a lot of IS_ENABLED() here, which i don't like. It is a
> lot better than #ifdef, but we should try to do better. 
I don't like it either i just tried to clean up code in "hot path" with ifdefs.
In theory this should replace "switch mode" in the near future so the ifdefs
will go away
> It would be
> good to split this cleanly into three parts. A generic library, which
> does not care about DUAL_MAC or SWITCHDEV. A driver which implements
> legacy DUAL MAC etc. And a driver which implements SWITCHDEV. We can
> then give this new switchdev driver a different compatible. It i still
> encoding in device tree how to use the hardware, but it is more
> implicit, rather than explicit.
Good idea, i'll sent the next version like that

Thanks,
Ilias