Linux Ethernet Bridging - Sep 2022 - [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 0/5] net: vlan: fix bridge binding behavior and add selftests

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:16:26 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov
wrote:
> The set looks good to me, the bridge and vlan direct dependency is gone and
> the new notification type is used for passing link type specific info.
IDK, vlan knows it's calling the bridge:

+	if ((vlan->flags ^ old_flags) & VLAN_FLAG_BRIDGE_BINDING &&
+	    netif_is_bridge_master(vlan->real_dev)) {

bridge knows it's vlan calling:

+	if (is_vlan_dev(dev)) {
+		br_vlan_device_event(dev, event, ptr);

going thru the generic NETDEV notifier seems odd.

If this is just to avoid the dependency we can perhaps add a stub 
like net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_stub.c ?
> If the others are ok with it I think you can send it as non-RFC, but
I'd give it
> a few more days at least. :)

On 21/09/2022 02:29, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:16:26 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> The set looks good to me, the bridge and vlan direct dependency is gone
and
>> the new notification type is used for passing link type specific info.
> 
> IDK, vlan knows it's calling the bridge:
> 
> +	if ((vlan->flags ^ old_flags) & VLAN_FLAG_BRIDGE_BINDING
&&
> +	    netif_is_bridge_master(vlan->real_dev)) {
> 
This one is more of an optimization so notifications are sent only when the
bridge
is involved, it can be removed if other interested parties show up.
> bridge knows it's vlan calling:
> 
> +	if (is_vlan_dev(dev)) {
> +		br_vlan_device_event(dev, event, ptr);
> 
> going thru the generic NETDEV notifier seems odd.
> 
> If this is just to avoid the dependency we can perhaps add a stub 
> like net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_stub.c ?
> 
I suggested the notifier to be more generic and be able to re-use it for other
link types although
I don't have other use cases in mind right now. Stubs are an alternative as
long as they and
their lifetime are properly managed. I don't have a strong preference here
so if you prefer
stubs I'm good.
>> If the others are ok with it I think you can send it as non-RFC, but
I'd give it
>> a few more days at least. :)
Cheers,
 Nik