On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:27:43AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:

On 09/01/2017 10:55 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

Hi Florian

quoted

quoted

quoted

tc bind dev sw0p0 queue 0 dev eth0 queue 16

It this the eth0 i don't like here. Why not in the implementation just
use something like netdev_master_upper_dev_get('sw0p0')? Or does

Last I brought this up with Jiri that we should link DSA network devices
to their master network deviecs with netdev_upper_dev_link() he said
this was not appropriate for DSA slave network devices, but I can't
remember why, I would assume that any stacked device set up would do that.

There is some form a linking going, our device names show that:

9: lan5@eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
    link/ether da:87:2a:03:cf:16 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff

In any case, we need to establish a mapping so we have to specify at
least the target device's queue number. It is quite similar in premise
to e.g: enslaving a network device to a bridge port:

ip link set dev eth0 master br0

But here br0 is absolutely required, we have to say which bridge the
slave port should be a member of.

But what good is eth0 in

tc bind dev sw0p0 queue 0 dev eth0 queue 16

As i said suggesting, you have to somehow verify that eth0 is the
conduit interface sw0p0 is using. Which makes the parameter pointless.
Determine it from the sw0p0 somehow.

	  Andrew