netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: propagate switchdev vlan

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:   Sun, 4 Oct 2020 20:59:44 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...th.li>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: propagate switchdev vlan_filtering
 prepare phase to drivers

On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 01:06:46AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
[...]
> ---
> The API for this one was chosen to be different than the one for
> .port_vlan_add and .port_vlan_prepare because
> (a) the list of dsa_switch_ops is growing bigger but in this case there
>     is no justification for it. For example there are some drivers that
>     don't do anything in .port_vlan_prepare, and likewise, they may not
>     need to do anything in .port_vlan_filtering_prepare either
> (b) the DSA API should be as close as possible to the switchdev API
>     except when there's a strong reason for that not to be the case. In
>     this situation, I don't see why it would be different.

I understand that this new function prototype is not to everyone's
taste?