[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4abbe32d007240b9c3aea9c8ca936fa3@kapio-technology.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2023 09:48:24 +0100
From: netdev@...io-technology.com
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.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 2023-02-04 09:12, Simon Horman wrote:
> 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.
The only thing is that we actually need to return both 0 and -EOPNOTSUPP
for unsupported flags. The dynamic flag requires 0 when not supported
(and supported) AFAICS.
Setting a mask as 'supported' for a feature that is not really supported
defeats the notion of 'supported' IMHO.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists