From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759682AbaD3W7Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:24 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53386 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752243AbaD3W7X (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 00:59:20 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Vlad Yasevich Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Cong Wang , netdev , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Stephen Hemminger , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bridge: trigger a bridge calculation upon port changes Message-ID: <20140430225920.GJ11838@wotan.suse.de> References: <1394680527-28970-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1394680527-28970-3-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20140315013940.GA28801@wotan.suse.de> <20140318212243.GD28471@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> <20140422194313.GQ27882@wotan.suse.de> <53615752.5040106@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53615752.5040106@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:04:34PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c > > index 54d207d..dcd9378 100644 > > --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c > > +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c > > @@ -315,6 +315,8 @@ netdev_features_t br_features_recompute(struct net_bridge *br, > > features &= ~NETIF_F_ONE_FOR_ALL; > > > > list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) { > > + if (p->flags & BR_ROOT_BLOCK) > > + continue; > > features = netdev_increment_features(features, > > p->dev->features, mask); > > } > > > Hi Luis > > The hunk above isn't right. Just because you set ROOT_BLOCK on the port > doesn't mean that you should ignore it's device features. If the device > you just added happens to disable or enable some device offload feature, > you should take that into account. OK thanks, how about this part: On 04/22/2014 03:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:22:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:46:49PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:26:25AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez >>>> wrote: >>>>> spin_unlock_bh(&p->br->lock); >>>>> + if (changed) >>>>> + call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGEADDR, >>>>> + p->br->dev); >>>>> + netdev_update_features(p->br->dev); >>>> >>>> I think this is supposed to be in netdev event handler of br->dev >>>> instead of here. >>> >>> Do you mean netdev_update_features() ? I mimic'd what was being done on >>> br_del_if() given that root blocking is doing something similar. If >>> we need to change something for the above then I suppose it means we need >>> to change br_del_if() too. Let me know if you see any reason for something >>> else. >>> >> >> Yeah, for me it looks like it's better to call netdev_update_features() >> in the event handler of br->dev, rather than where calling >> call_netdevice_notifiers(..., br->dev);. > > I still don't see why, in fact trying to verify this I am wondering now > if instead we should actually fix br_features_recompute() to take into > consideration BR_ROOT_BLOCK as below. Notice how netdev_update_features() > is called above even if the MAC address did not change, just as is done > on br_del_if(). There is an NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE event so would it be more > appropriate we just call > > call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE, p->br->dev) > > for both the above then and also br_del_if()? Luis