On 15-11-14 01:39 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 05:02:18PM CET, pjonn...@broadcom.com wrote: >> Packet forwarding to/from bond interfaces is done in software. >> >> This patch enables certain platforms to bridge traffic to/from >> bond interfaces in hardware. Notifications are sent out when >> the "active" slave set for a bond interface is updated in >> software. Platforms use the notifications to program the >> hardware accordingly. The changes have been verified to work >> with configured and 802.3ad bond interfaces. >> >> Signed-off-by: Premkumar Jonnala <pjonn...@broadcom.com> > > This patch is wrong, in many different acpects. Leaving the submission > style, and no in-tree consumer aside, adding ndos for this thing is > unacceptable. It should be handled as a part of switchdev attrs.
Why is it unacceptable? I think its at least worth debating. If I have a nic that can do bonding but none of the other switchdev things then implementing another ndo is certainly more straight forward. As it is heading many of the 10+Gbps nics may need to implement just enough of the switchdev infrastructure to get things like bonding up and working. Not necessarily a bad thing if we make the switchdev infrastructure light but does sort of make the name confusing if my nic is not doing any switching ;) Thanks, John > Also, the solution should not be bonding-centric. > > I have a patchset in my queue which does this correctly, for bond and team > using switchdev attr and with actual in-tree consumer, mlxsw driver. > I plan to send that soon after net-next opens. > > Jiri > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
