Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 03:25:59AM +0200, [email protected] wrote: >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?
Why? We have "master_upper" to point exactly at this kind of device. > >> [..] >> >> >> >+void netdev_compute_features_from_lowers(struct net_device *dev, bool >> >update_header) >> >> netdev_compute_master_upper_features? > >netdev_compute_upper_features? > >Thanks >Hangbin
