Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 06:43:23AM CEST, n...@openwrt.org wrote:
>On 2014-09-04 14:47, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:20:58AM CEST, f.faine...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>On 09/03/2014 02:24 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/netdevice.h | 3 ++-
>>>> include/net/dsa.h | 1 +
>>>> net/dsa/Kconfig | 2 +-
>>>> net/dsa/dsa.c | 3 +++
>>>> net/dsa/slave.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 5 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> index 6a009d1..7ee070f 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>>> @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@
>>>>
>>>> #include <linux/ethtool.h>
>>>> #include <net/net_namespace.h>
>>>> -#include <net/dsa.h>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DCB
>>>> #include <net/dcbnl.h>
>>>> #endif
>>>> @@ -1259,6 +1258,8 @@ enum netdev_priv_flags {
>>>> #define IFF_LIVE_ADDR_CHANGE IFF_LIVE_ADDR_CHANGE
>>>> #define IFF_MACVLAN IFF_MACVLAN
>>>>
>>>> +#include <net/dsa.h>
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> * struct net_device - The DEVICE structure.
>>>> * Actually, this whole structure is a big mistake. It
>>>> mixes I/O
>>>> diff --git a/include/net/dsa.h b/include/net/dsa.h
>>>> index 9771292..d60cd42 100644
>>>> --- a/include/net/dsa.h
>>>> +++ b/include/net/dsa.h
>>>> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ struct dsa_switch {
>>>> u32 phys_mii_mask;
>>>> struct mii_bus *slave_mii_bus;
>>>> struct net_device *ports[DSA_MAX_PORTS];
>>>> + struct netdev_phys_item_id psid;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> static inline bool dsa_is_cpu_port(struct dsa_switch *ds, int p)
>>>> diff --git a/net/dsa/Kconfig b/net/dsa/Kconfig
>>>> index a585fd6..4e144a2 100644
>>>> --- a/net/dsa/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/net/dsa/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>>>> config HAVE_NET_DSA
>>>> def_bool y
>>>> - depends on NETDEVICES && !S390
>>>> + depends on NETDEVICES && NET_SWITCHDEV && !S390
>>>
>>>It does not look like this is necessary, we are only using definitions
>>>from net/dsa.h and include/linux/netdevice.h, and if it was, a 'select'
>>>would be more appropriate here I think.
>>>
>>>TBH, I think we should rather drop this patch for now, I do not see any
>>>benefit in providing a random id over no-id at all.
>>
>> Well, the benefit is that you are still able to see which ports belong
>> to the same switch.
>I think it's a bad idea to force switchdev bloat onto DSA users just for
>that random id thing.
Np. I will drop this.
>
>- Felix
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
