On 10/20/25 11:10 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2025-10-17, 03:41:52 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>> Some high level software drivers need to compute features from lower
>> devices. But each has their own implementations and may lost some
>> feature compute. Let's use one common function to compute features
>> for kinds of these devices.
>>
>> The new helper uses the current bond implementation as the reference
>> one, as the latter already handles all the relevant aspects: netdev
>> features, TSO limits and dst retention.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <[email protected]>
>
> No objection to this patch/series, just a nit and some discussion below, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Sabrina Dubroca <[email protected]>
>
>
> [...]
>> +/**
>> + * netdev_compute_master_upper_features - compute feature from lowers
>
> nit: I'm slightly annoyed (that's not quite the right word, sorry)
> that we're adding a new function to "compute features" that doesn't
> touch netdev->features, but I can't come up with a better name
> (the best I got was "compute extra features" and it doesn't help).
I'm not the right person to ask a good name, and I'm ok with the current
one, but since the question is pending... what about:
netdev_{compute,update}_offloads_from_lower()
?
As it actually updates (some of) the offloads available to the (upper)
device?
>> + * @dev: the upper device
>> + * @update_header: whether to update upper device's
>> header_len/headroom/tailroom
>> + *
>> + * Recompute the upper device's feature based on all lower devices.
>> + */
>> +void netdev_compute_master_upper_features(struct net_device *dev, bool
>> update_header)
>> +{
> [...]
>> + netif_set_tso_max_segs(dev, tso_max_segs);
>> + netif_set_tso_max_size(dev, tso_max_size);
>> +
>> + netdev_change_features(dev);
>
> Maybe a dumb idea: I'm wondering if we're doing this from the wrong
> side.
>
> Right now we have:
>
> [some device op] -> [this new function] -> netdev_change_features ->
> __netdev_update_features -> ndo_fix_features
>
> Would it make more sense to go instead:
>
> [some device op] -> netdev_change_features -> __netdev_update_features ->
> ndo_fix_features -> [this new function]
>
> ?
Uhmmm.... this function touches a few more things beyond dev->*features,
calling it from ndo_fix_features() looks a bit out-of-scope.
/P
