->dst;
>
> + ppid->id_len = sizeof(dst->index);
> + memcpy(&ppid->id, &dst->index, ppid->id_len);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Finally this will give us a way to distinguish two ports with the same switch
and port IDs on a system with two di
dd call, the follow-up patches add more of
> both add and del calls.
>
> Thus to remove the duplication, extract the repetition into named
> functions and reuse.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata
Considering Dan's comment as well:
Reviewed-by: Vivie
Hi Petr,
Petr Machata writes:
> Vivien Didelot writes:
>
>>> + } else {
>>> + err = br_switchdev_port_obj_add(dev, v->vid, flags);
>>> + if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>>> + goto out;
>>>
Hi Florian,
Florian Fainelli writes:
> Andrew, Vivien, if the following hunks get applied are we possibly
> breaking mv88e6xxx? This is the use case that is really missing IMHO at
> the moment in DSA: we cannot control the VLAN membership and attributes
> of the CPU port(s), so either we make it
Hi Petr,
Petr Machata writes:
> Ignore VLAN events where the orig_dev is the bridge device itself.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata
Reviewed-by: Vivien Didelot
Thanks,
Vivien
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject
Hi Petr,
Petr Machata writes:
> -static int __vlan_vid_add(struct net_device *dev, struct net_bridge *br,
> - u16 vid, u16 flags)
> +static int br_switchdev_port_obj_add(struct net_device *dev, u16 vid, u16
> flags)
> {
> struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan v = {
>
goto out;
> }
Except that br_switchdev_port_obj_add taking vid and flags arguments
seems confusing to me, the change looks good:
Reviewed-by: Vivien Didelot
Thanks,
Vivien
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://dr
