Re: [PATCH net] net: Have netpoll bring-up DSA management interface

[Florian Fainelli]

On 11/16/20 3:06 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 10/20/20 6:12 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:19:16 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 02:03:40PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>> Completely crazy and outlandish idea, I know, but what's wrong with
>>>>> doing this in DSA?  
>>>>
>>>> I really do not have a problem with that approach however other stacked
>>>> devices like 802.1Q do not do that. It certainly scales a lot better to
>>>> do this within DSA rather than sprinkling DSA specific knowledge
>>>> throughout the network stack. Maybe for "configuration less" stacked
>>>> devices such as DSA, 802.1Q (bridge ports?), bond etc. it would be
>>>> acceptable to ensure that the lower device is always brought up?  
>>>
>>> For upper interfaces with more than one lower (bridge, bond) I'm not so
>>> sure. For uppers with a single lower (DSA, 8021q), it's pretty much a
>>> no-brainer to me. Question is, where to code this? I think it's ok to
>>> leave it in DSA, then 8021q could copy it as well if there was a need.
>>
>> FWIW no strong preference here. Maybe I'd lean slightly towards
>> Florian's approach since we can go to the always upping the CPU netdev
>> from that, if we start with auto-upping CPU netdev - user space may
>> depend on that in general so we can't go back.
>>
>> But up to you folks, this seems like a DSA-specific problem, vlans don't
>> get created before user space is up (AFAIK), so there is no compelling
>> reason to change them in my mind.
> 
> Right I remembered in my previous job we had a patch that would support
> creating VLAN devices when specified over ipconfig on the kernel command
> line, but that as never upstream AFAICT.
> 
>>
>> Florian for you patch specifially - can't we use
>> netdev_for_each_lower_dev()?
> 
> Looks like I forgot to respond here, yes we could do that because we do
> call netdev_upper_dev_link() in net/dsa/slave.c. Let me re-post with
> that done.

I remember now there was a reason for me to "open code" this, and this
is because since the patch is intended to be a bug fix, I wanted it to
be independent from: 2f1e8ea726e9 ("net: dsa: link interfaces with the
DSA master to get rid of lockdep warnings")

which we would be depending on and is only two-ish releases away. Let me
know if you prefer different fixes for different branches.
-- 
Florian