> > Hi Vladimir
> >
> > So you are suggesting this?
> >
> > > > + ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Yes, basically this:
>
> diff --git a/net/dsa/slave.c b/net/dsa/slave.c
> index 4c7f086a047b..6aff8cfc9cf1 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/slave.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/slave.c
> @@ -1807,6 +1807,13 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
> ret, slave_dev->name);
> goto out_phy;
> }
> + rtnl_lock();
> + ret = netdev_upper_dev_link(master, slave_dev, NULL);
> + rtnl_unlock();
> + if (ret) {
> + unregister_netdevice(slave_dev);
> + goto out_phy;
> + }
>
> return 0;
>
> @@ -1826,12 +1833,14 @@ int dsa_slave_create(struct dsa_port *port)
>
> void dsa_slave_destroy(struct net_device *slave_dev)
> {
> + struct net_device *master = dsa_slave_to_master(slave_dev);
> struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_slave_to_port(slave_dev);
> struct dsa_slave_priv *p = netdev_priv(slave_dev);
>
> netif_carrier_off(slave_dev);
> rtnl_lock();
> phylink_disconnect_phy(dp->pl);
> + netdev_upper_dev_unlink(master, slave_dev);
> rtnl_unlock();
>
> dsa_slave_notify(slave_dev, DSA_PORT_UNREGISTER);
>
> Do you see a problem with it?
I was initially not sure you could do this. But it looks like you can
have N : M relationships between uppers and lowers. I suppose it does
make sense. You can have multiple VLAN uppers to one base device. You
can have multiple lowers to one bond device, etc.
I wonder what 'side effects' there are for declaring this linkage. It
is not something i've looked into before, since we never used it. So i
don't see a problem with this, other than i don't know what problems
we might run into :-)
Andrew
