[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y94TebdRQRHMMj/c@corigine.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 09:12:41 +0100
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...io-technology.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
"maintainer:MICROCHIP KSZ SERIES ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER"
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:RENESAS RZ/N1 A5PSW SWITCH DRIVER"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implementation of
dynamic ATU entries
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:44:22PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:20:22AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > else if (someflag)
> > > dosomething();
> > >
> > > For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive,
> > > as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but
> > > that can change at some time of course.
> >
> > Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would
> > be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever
> > approach you prefer is fine by me.
>
> The model we have for unsupported bits in the SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS
> and SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS handlers is essentially this:
>
> if (flags & ~(supported_flag_mask))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> if (flags & supported_flag_1)
> ...
>
> if (flags & supported_flag_2)
> ...
>
> I suppose applying this model here would address Simon's extensibility concern.
Yes, that is the model I had in mind.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists