On 11/25/14 11:01, John Fastabend wrote:

On 11/25/2014 07:38 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

quoted

On 11/25/14 05:28, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Do the work of parsing NDA_VLAN directly in rtnetlink code, pass simple
u16 vid to drivers from there.

Acked-by: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>

I know this maintains status quo of what is already in the kernel.
But we need to take care of policy (pass it from user space) which
dictates how to proceed on failure. Three possible options:
1) If something fails just continue with the rest of the transaction.
Return success if at least one thing succeeds.

I'm not sure how (1) works. We can't just let user-space/management
software run along thinking its configuration is set when its
not. At least it doesn't look very appealing for the software I'm
looking at.

Thats why it is a policy - just dont use it ;->
IOW, if the user made that choice the consequences are clear i.e there
is no confusion.
Example:
I could add 100 entries and if the 10th one failed for some reason to
apply to software version, I want to continue adding as many as i can
possibly add in the hardware etc.

quoted

2) If something fails stop transaction and return some partial success code

Option (2) is the current behavior of fdb this is straight forward
and punts the complexity to user space. And at least the state is
always known.

I dont think we return "partial" success code, do we?
I think we stop when  software fails and dont care if hardware fails.
So this is status quo - we can do better..

quoted

3) If something fails undo everything that has been done and return failure.

Sure this would be nice to have when doing bulk updates and is more
useful on hardware that has a commit phase where updates don't actually
occur until they are committed.

Indeed - i dont expect this option to be used as much but identifying
as a need now is important.

quoted

So two bits from somewhere would be useful to send from userspace->kernel

+1 for a follow up patch though.

As long as we are not adding any new behavior - agreed.
I dont see us doing that, so no controversy (hence my ACK).

cheers,
jamal