On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:47:12AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 2/25/19 1:49 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 08:47:27AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> Le 2/23/19 à 2:32 AM, Ido Schimmel a écrit : > >>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 03:59:25PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >>>> - if (attr->flags & SWITCHDEV_F_NO_RECURSE) > >>>> + if (attr & SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER) > >>>> + rc = call_switchdev_blocking_notifiers(nt, dev, > >>>> + &attr_info.info, > >>>> NULL); > >>>> + else > >>>> + rc = call_switchdev_notifiers(nt, dev, &attr_info.info, > >>>> NULL); > >>> > >>> I don't believe this is needed. You're calling this function from > >>> switchdev_port_attr_set_now() which is always called from process > >>> context. switchdev_port_attr_set() takes care of that. Similar to > >>> switchdev_port_obj_add(). > >> > >> Except for net/bridge/br_switchdev.c when we check the bridge port's > >> flags support with PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS. In that case we are executing from > >> the caller (atomic) context and we can't defer otherwise that trumps the > >> whole idea of being able to do a quick check and return that to the > >> caller that we cannot support specific flags. How would you recommend > >> approaching that? > > > > In this case you can invoke call_switchdev_notifiers() directly from > > br_switchdev_set_port_flag(). Eventually switchdev_port_attr_set() will > > be gone and bridge code will invoke the notifiers directly. > > That can be done, but it still requires the target driver (mlxsw, > ocelot, dsa, etc.) to support attribute notification from blocking and > non-blocking context. Are you fine with that?
Yes. Sorry for the latency. I was away yesterday. Reviewed your v2 and only found one problem. Will run some tests now. Thanks! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
