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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/