| Message ID | 20190211211749.19847-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Remove getting SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS | expand |
Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:17:46PM CET, f.fainelli@gmail.com wrote: >Hi all, > >AFAICT there is no code that attempts to get the value of the attribute >SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS while it is used with >switchdev_port_attr_set(). > >This is effectively no doing anything and it can slow down future work >that tries to make modifications in these areas so remove that. > >David, there should be no dependency with previous patch series, but >again, feedback from Ido and Jiri would be welcome in case this was >added for a reason. It was originally used by: switchdev_port_bridge_getlink() removed by: commit 29ab586c3d83f81c435e269cace9a1619afb5bbd Author: Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@mellanox.com> Date: Sun Aug 6 16:15:51 2017 +0300 net: switchdev: Remove bridge bypass support from switchdev So these are just leftovers. Let's flush them.
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:17:46 -0800 > AFAICT there is no code that attempts to get the value of the attribute > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS while it is used with > switchdev_port_attr_set(). > > This is effectively no doing anything and it can slow down future work > that tries to make modifications in these areas so remove that. Series applied. > David, there should be no dependency with previous patch series, but > again, feedback from Ido and Jiri would be welcome in case this was > added for a reason. Ok, is there going to be another respin of that switchdev_ops removal series?
On 2/12/19 9:50 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:17:46 -0800 > >> AFAICT there is no code that attempts to get the value of the attribute >> SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS while it is used with >> switchdev_port_attr_set(). >> >> This is effectively no doing anything and it can slow down future work >> that tries to make modifications in these areas so remove that. > > Series applied. > >> David, there should be no dependency with previous patch series, but >> again, feedback from Ido and Jiri would be welcome in case this was >> added for a reason. > > Ok, is there going to be another respin of that switchdev_ops removal > series? Yes, I will be working on a v5 which addresses Ido's feedback in the next hours.
On 2/12/19 9:54 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 2/12/19 9:50 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:17:46 -0800 >> >>> AFAICT there is no code that attempts to get the value of the attribute >>> SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS while it is used with >>> switchdev_port_attr_set(). >>> >>> This is effectively no doing anything and it can slow down future work >>> that tries to make modifications in these areas so remove that. >> >> Series applied. >> >>> David, there should be no dependency with previous patch series, but >>> again, feedback from Ido and Jiri would be welcome in case this was >>> added for a reason. >> >> Ok, is there going to be another respin of that switchdev_ops removal >> series? > > Yes, I will be working on a v5 which addresses Ido's feedback in the > next hours. David, looks like I managed to introduce a build failure with rocker_ofdpa.c, sorry about that, I will send a follow-up immediately.