Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:23:39PM CET, tgraf-G/eBtMaohhA@public.gmane.org wrote:

On 03/26/14 at 05:31pm, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

switchdev API is designed to allow kernel support for various switch
chips.

It is the responsibility of a driver to create netdevice instances which
represents every port and for the switch master itself. Driver uses
swdev_register and swportdev_register functions to make the core aware
of the fact these netdevices are representing switch and switch ports.

I like this even more than the previous approach.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <redacted>

quoted

+int __swdev_register(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+	if (dev->priv_flags & IFF_SWITCH) {
+		netdev_err(dev, "Device is already registered as a switch device\n");
+		return -EBUSY;
+	}
+	dev->priv_flags |= IFF_SWITCH;
+	netdev_info(dev, "Switch device registered\n");

Perhaps include name of device here?

netdev_info already does that.

quoted

+	return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__swdev_register);
+
+int swdev_register(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+	int err;
+
+	rtnl_lock();
+	err = __swdev_register(dev);
+	rtnl_unlock();
+	return err;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swdev_register);
+
+void __swdev_unregister(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+	dev->priv_flags |= IFF_SWITCH;
+	netdev_info(dev, "Switch device unregistered\n");

Same here

quoted

+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__swdev_unregister);
+
+void swdev_unregister(struct net_device *dev)
+{
+	rtnl_lock();
+	__swdev_unregister(dev);
+	rtnl_unlock();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swdev_unregister);
+
+
+bool swportdev_dev_check(const struct net_device *port_dev)
+{
+	return port_dev->priv_flags & IFF_SWITCH_PORT;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swportdev_dev_check);
+
+static rx_handler_result_t swportdev_handle_frame(struct sk_buff **pskb)
+{
+	struct sk_buff *skb = *pskb;
+
+	/* We don't care what comes from port device into rx path.
+	 * If there's something there, it is destined to ETH_P_ALL
+	 * handlers. So just consume it.
+	 */
+	dev_kfree_skb(skb);
+	return RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
+}
+
+int __swportdev_register(struct net_device *port_dev, struct net_device *dev)
+{
+	int err;
+
+	if (!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_SWITCH)) {
+		netdev_err(dev, "Device is not a switch device\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+	if (port_dev->priv_flags & IFF_SWITCH_PORT) {
+		netdev_err(port_dev, "Device is already registered as a switch port\n");
+		return -EBUSY;
+	}
+	err = netdev_master_upper_dev_link(port_dev, dev);
+	if (err) {
+		netdev_err(dev, "Device %s failed to set upper link\n",
+			   port_dev->name);
+		return err;
+	}
+	err = netdev_rx_handler_register(port_dev, swportdev_handle_frame, NULL);
+	if (err) {
+		netdev_err(dev, "Device %s failed to register rx_handler\n",
+			   port_dev->name);
+		goto err_handler_register;
+	}
+	port_dev->priv_flags |= IFF_SWITCH_PORT;
+	netdev_info(port_dev, "Switch port device registered\n");

and here

quoted

+	return 0;
+
+err_handler_register:
+	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(port_dev, dev);
+	return err;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__swportdev_register);
+
+int swportdev_register(struct net_device *port_dev, struct net_device *dev)

Maybe rename dev to switch_dev just to make it clear?

That might be reasonable.

quoted

+{
+	int err;
+
+	rtnl_lock();
+	err = __swportdev_register(port_dev, dev);
+	rtnl_unlock();
+	return err;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swportdev_register);
+
+void __swportdev_unregister(struct net_device *port_dev)
+{
+	struct net_device *dev;
+
+	dev = netdev_master_upper_dev_get(port_dev);
+	BUG_ON(!dev);
+	port_dev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_SWITCH_PORT;
+	netdev_rx_handler_unregister(port_dev);
+	netdev_upper_dev_unlink(port_dev, dev);
+	netdev_info(port_dev, "Switch port device unregistered\n");
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__swportdev_unregister);
+
+void swportdev_unregister(struct net_device *port_dev)
+{
+	rtnl_lock();
+	__swportdev_unregister(port_dev);
+	rtnl_unlock();
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(swportdev_unregister);
+
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Jiri Pirko [off-list ref]");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Switch device API");
-- 
1.8.5.3