[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190826112049.GB27025@t480s.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:20:49 -0400
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: f.fainelli@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch, idosch@...sch.org,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] net: dsa: tag_8021q: Restore bridge VLANs
when enabling vlan_filtering
Hi Vladimir,
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 21:44:54 +0300, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> - if (enabled)
> - err = dsa_port_vid_add(upstream_dp, tx_vid, 0);
> - else
> - err = dsa_port_vid_del(upstream_dp, tx_vid);
> + err = dsa_8021q_vid_apply(ds, upstream, tx_vid, 0, enabled);
> if (err) {
> dev_err(ds->dev, "Failed to apply TX VID %d on port %d: %d\n",
> tx_vid, upstream, err);
> return err;
> }
>
> - return 0;
> + if (!enabled)
> + err = dsa_8021q_restore_pvid(ds, port);
> +
> + return err;
> }
I did not dig that much into tag_8021q.c yet. From seeing this portion,
I'm just wondering if these two helpers couldn't be part of the same logic
as they both act upon the "enabled" condition?
Otherwise I have no complains about the series.
Thanks,
Vivien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists