On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 14:12:49 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:14:28PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:52:25 +0530 Vasundhara Volam wrote: > > > Hello Jiri, > > > > > > After the following set of upstream commits, the user fails to attach > > > a bond to the bridge, if the user creates the bond with two interfaces > > > from different bnxt_en NICs. Previously bnxt_en driver does not > > > advertise the switch_id for legacy mode as part of > > > ndo_get_port_parent_id cb but with the following patches, switch_id is > > > returned even in legacy mode which is causing the failure. > > > > > > --------------- > > > 7e1146e8c10c00f859843817da8ecc5d902ea409 net: devlink: introduce > > > devlink_compat_switch_id_get() helper > > > 6605a226781eb1224c2dcf974a39eea11862b864 bnxt: pass switch ID through > > > devlink_port_attrs_set() > > > 56d9f4e8f70e6f47ad4da7640753cf95ae51a356 bnxt: remove > > > ndo_get_port_parent_id implementation for physical ports > > > ---------------- > > > > > > As there is a plan to get rid of ndo_get_port_parent_id in future, I > > > think there is a need to fix devlink_compat_switch_id_get() to return > > > the switch_id only when device is in SWITCHDEV mode and this effects > > > all the NICs. > > > > > > Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. > > > > I'm not Jiri, but I'd think that hiding switch_id from devices should > > not be the solution here. Especially that no NICs offload bridging > > today. > > > > Could you describe the team/bridge failure in detail, I'm not that > > familiar with this code. > > Maybe: > > br_add_slave() > br_add_if() > nbp_switchdev_mark_set() > dev_get_port_parent_id() > > I believe the last call will return '-ENODATA' because the two bnxt > netdevs member in the bond have different switch IDs. Perhaps the > function can be changed to return '-EOPNOTSUPP' when it's called for an > upper device that have multiple parent IDs beneath it: > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > index d42c9ea0c3c0..7932594ca437 100644 > --- a/net/core/dev.c > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > @@ -8646,7 +8646,7 @@ int dev_get_port_parent_id(struct net_device *dev, > if (!first.id_len) > first = *ppid; > else if (memcmp(&first, ppid, sizeof(*ppid))) > - return -ENODATA; > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > } > > return err;
LGTM, or we could make bridge ignore ENODATA (in case the distinctions is useful?) I was searching for the early versions of Florian's patch set but I can't find it :( Florian, do you remember if there was a reason to fail bridge in this case?
