Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] ldmvsw: better use of link up and down on ldom vswitch

[Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@oracle.com>]

On 3/6/2017 3:53 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 03/06/2017 03:15 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> When an ldom VM is bound, the network vswitch infrastructure is set up for
>> it, but was being forced 'UP' by the userland switch configuration script.
>> When 'UP' but not actually connected to a running VM, the ipv6 neighbor
>> probes fail (not a horrible thing) and start cluttering up the kernel logs.
>> Funny thing: these are debug messages that never actually show up, but
>> we do see the net_ratelimited messages that say N callbacks were
>> suppressed.
>>
>> This patch defers the netif_carrier_on() until an actual link has been
>> established with the VM, as indicated by receiving an LDC_EVENT_UP from
>> the underlying LDC protocol.  Similarly, we take the link down when we
>> see the LDC_EVENT_RESET.
>>
>> Orabug: 25525312
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c         |   10 +++++++---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet_common.c |   14 ++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c
>> index 89952de..c6f6d59 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c
>> @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@
>>  static u8 vsw_port_hwaddr[ETH_ALEN] = {0xFE, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF};
>>
>>  #define DRV_MODULE_NAME		"ldmvsw"
>> -#define DRV_MODULE_VERSION	"1.1"
>> -#define DRV_MODULE_RELDATE	"February 3, 2017"
>> +#define DRV_MODULE_VERSION	"1.2"
>> +#define DRV_MODULE_RELDATE	"March 4, 2017"
>>
>>  static char version[] =
>>  	DRV_MODULE_NAME " " DRV_MODULE_VERSION " (" DRV_MODULE_RELDATE ")";
>> @@ -133,7 +133,6 @@ static void vsw_poll_controller(struct net_device *dev)
>>  #endif
>>
>>  static const struct net_device_ops vsw_ops = {
>> -	.ndo_open		= sunvnet_open_common,
>
> Is this change intentional? It was not entirely obvious where you would
> be setting ::ndo_open in other places.

Yes, it is correct.  It does look a bit odd, but nearly all the work is 
done in the _probe(), and now the carrier_on happens a little later when 
the LDC_EVENT_UP is received, so there's no longer a need for the 
_open() call.

sln


>