Hi, Ansuel, On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 01:08, Ansuel Smith <ansuels...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So.. how should we proceed with this? From what I understand the idea is to > merge this ASAP.
But not a moment sooner. ;) I'm sure we agree that this patch won't be merged upstream in its current form, according to the comments received, and the less we diverge from upstream, the better for maintenance. > Think we have to change this with the DSA specific attribute. Ok, let's step back and take a look at our possibilities. Stephen Hemminger suggested auditing all kernel usage of IFLA_LINK and adding checks where needed to make sure the current users don't break [1]. This would certainly work, but that would mean sprinkling error checks in possibly quite a number of places [2]. Vladimir Oltean, instead, suggested creating a new netlink attribute for this specific purpose [3] (let's call it IFLA_CPU, for example). I believe the latter is the less intrusive of the options, with the added bonus of not having to overload IFLA_LINK with different semantics (something I personally dislike). I would also rename "link" to "cpu" in the ip patch (avoiding the overload, once again). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210411100411.6d16e51d@hermes.local/ [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/A/ident/IFLA_LINK [3] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210411170939.cxmva5vdcpqu4bmi@skbuf/ Cheers, Rui _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
