netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 00/10] Let switchdev drivers offload and unoffload bridge ports at their own convenience

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:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:25:08 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Marek Behun <kabel@...ckhole.sk>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 00/10] Let switchdev drivers offload and
 unoffload bridge ports at their own convenience

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 02:12:01PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:01:48PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > The patches were split from a larger series for easier review:
> > 
> > This is not what I meant. I specifically suggested to get the TX
> > forwarding offload first and then extending the API with an argument to
> > opt-in for the replay / cleanup:
> 
> Yeah, ok, I did not get that and I had already reposted by the time you
> clarified, sorry.
> 
> Anyway, is it so bad that we cannot look at the patches in the order
> that they are in right now (even if this means that maybe a few more
> days would pass)? To me it makes a bit more sense anyway to first
> consolidate the code that is already in the tree right now, before
> adding new logic. And I don't really want to rebase the patches again to
> change the ordering and risk a build breakage without a good reason.

If you don't want to change the order, then at least make the
replay/cleanup optional and set it to 'false' for mlxsw. This should
mean that the only change in mlxsw should be adding calls to
switchdev_bridge_port_offload() / switchdev_bridge_port_unoffload() in
mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_create() / mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_destroy(),
respectively.