RE: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration

[Varlese, Marco]

Removed unnecessary content for ease of reading...

> >>>>> +/* Switch Port Attributes section */
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +enum {
> >>>>> +	IFLA_ATTR_UNSPEC,
> >>>>> +	IFLA_ATTR_LEARNING,
> >>>> Any reason you want learning here ?. This is covered as part  of
> >>>> the bridge setlink attributes.
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, because the user may _not_ want to go through a bridge
> >>> interface
> >> necessarily.
> >> But, the bridge setlink/getlink interface was changed to accommodate
> 'self'
> >> for exactly such cases.
> >> I kind of understand your case for the other attributes (these are
> >> per port settings that switch asics provide).
> >>
> >> However, i don't understand the reason to pull in bridge attributes here.
> >>
> > Maybe, I am missing something so you might help. The learning attribute -
> in my case - it is like all other attributes: a port attribute (as you said, port
> settings that the switch provides per port).
> > So, what I was saying is "why the user shall go through a bridge to configure
> the learning attribute"? From my perspective, it is as any other attribute and
> as such configurable on the port.
> 
> Thinking about this some more, i don't see why any of these attributes
> (except loopback. I dont understand the loopback attribute) cant be part of
> the birdge port attributes.
> 
> With this we will end up adding l2 attributes in two places: the general link
> attributes and bridge attributes.
> 
> And since we have gone down the path of using ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink
> with 'self'....we should stick to that for all l2 attributes.
> 
> The idea of overloading ndo_bridge_set/getlink, was to have the same set of
> attributes but support both cases where the user wants to go through the
> bridge driver or directly to the switch port driver. So, you are not really going
> through the bridge driver if you use 'self' and ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink.
> 

Roopa, one of the comments I got from Thomas Graf on my v1 patch was that your patch and mine were supplementary ("I think Roopa's patches are supplementary. Not all switchdev users will be backed with a Linux Bridge. I therefore welcome your patches very much")... I also understood by others that the patch made sense for the same reason. I simply do not understand why these attributes (and maybe others in the future) could not be configured directly on a standard port but have to go through a bridge.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/