On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 08:47:27AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Le 2/23/19 à 2:32 AM, Ido Schimmel a écrit : > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 03:59:25PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> - if (attr->flags & SWITCHDEV_F_NO_RECURSE) > >> + if (attr & SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER) > >> + rc = call_switchdev_blocking_notifiers(nt, dev, > >> + &attr_info.info, NULL); > >> + else > >> + rc = call_switchdev_notifiers(nt, dev, &attr_info.info, NULL); > > > > I don't believe this is needed. You're calling this function from > > switchdev_port_attr_set_now() which is always called from process > > context. switchdev_port_attr_set() takes care of that. Similar to > > switchdev_port_obj_add(). > > Except for net/bridge/br_switchdev.c when we check the bridge port's > flags support with PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS. In that case we are executing from > the caller (atomic) context and we can't defer otherwise that trumps the > whole idea of being able to do a quick check and return that to the > caller that we cannot support specific flags. How would you recommend > approaching that?
In this case you can invoke call_switchdev_notifiers() directly from br_switchdev_set_port_flag(). Eventually switchdev_port_attr_set() will be gone and bridge code will invoke the notifiers directly.
