Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] ldmvsw: better use of link up and down on ldom vswitch

[Shannon Nelson]

On 3/6/2017 3:53 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 03/06/2017 03:15 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> > When an ldom VM is bound, the network vswitch infrastructure is set up for
> > it, but was being forced 'UP' by the userland switch configuration script.
> > When 'UP' but not actually connected to a running VM, the ipv6 neighbor
> > probes fail (not a horrible thing) and start cluttering up the kernel logs.
> > Funny thing: these are debug messages that never actually show up, but
> > we do see the net_ratelimited messages that say N callbacks were
> > suppressed.
> >
> > This patch defers the netif_carrier_on() until an actual link has been
> > established with the VM, as indicated by receiving an LDC_EVENT_UP from
> > the underlying LDC protocol.  Similarly, we take the link down when we
> > see the LDC_EVENT_RESET.
> >
> > Orabug: 25525312
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c         |   10 +++++++---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet_common.c |   14 ++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c
> > index 89952de..c6f6d59 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/ldmvsw.c
> > @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@
> >  static u8 vsw_port_hwaddr[ETH_ALEN] = {0xFE, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF};
> >
> >  #define DRV_MODULE_NAME		"ldmvsw"
> > -#define DRV_MODULE_VERSION	"1.1"
> > -#define DRV_MODULE_RELDATE	"February 3, 2017"
> > +#define DRV_MODULE_VERSION	"1.2"
> > +#define DRV_MODULE_RELDATE	"March 4, 2017"
> >
> >  static char version[] =
> >  	DRV_MODULE_NAME " " DRV_MODULE_VERSION " (" DRV_MODULE_RELDATE ")";
> > @@ -133,7 +133,6 @@ static void vsw_poll_controller(struct net_device *dev)
> >  #endif
> >
> >  static const struct net_device_ops vsw_ops = {
> > -	.ndo_open		= sunvnet_open_common,
>
> Is this change intentional? It was not entirely obvious where you would
> be setting ::ndo_open in other places.

Yes, it is correct.  It does look a bit odd, but nearly all the work is 
done in the _probe(), and now the carrier_on happens a little later when 
the LDC_EVENT_UP is received, so there's no longer a need for the 
_open() call.

sln


>