[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <wihwovrfz62.fsf@dev-r-vrt-156.mtr.labs.mlnx>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 20:00:37 +0300
From: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <jiri@...lanox.com>,
<idosch@...lanox.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<razvan.stefanescu@....com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<stephen@...workplumber.org>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
<f.fainelli@...il.com>, <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: bridge: Notify about bridge VLANs
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> writes:
>> + } else {
>> + err = br_switchdev_port_obj_add(dev, v->vid, flags);
>> + if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>> + goto out;
>> }
>
> Except that br_switchdev_port_obj_add taking vid and flags arguments
> seems confusing to me, the change looks good:
I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Both VID and flags are sent with the
notification, so they need to be passed on to the function somehow. Do
you have a counterproposal for the API?
Thanks,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists