[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aO74J20k16L7jS15@fedora>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 01:25:59 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Sabrina Dubroca <sdubroca@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
bridge@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 net-next 1/4] net: add a common function to compute
features from lowers devices
Hi Jiri,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:40:12AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >+#define VIRTUAL_DEV_VLAN_FEATURES (NETIF_F_HW_CSUM | NETIF_F_SG | \
>
> I don't like the "virtual" naming. In the past, we always tried to avoid
> that for lower-upper devices like bond/team/bridge/others. Soft-device
> was the used term. Please let the "virtual" term for vitrualization,
> would that be possible?
Sure
>
> How about "master_upper"? This is already widely used to refer to
> bond/team/bridge/other master soft devices.
>
> MASTER_UPPER_DEV_VLAN_FEATURES?
I'm not sure if we should avoid using "master" now. Maybe just UPPER_DEV_VLAN_FEATURES?
> [..]
>
>
> >+void netdev_compute_features_from_lowers(struct net_device *dev, bool update_header)
>
> netdev_compute_master_upper_features?
netdev_compute_upper_features?
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists