From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Fastabend Subject: Re: [patch net-next] switchdev: call bridge setlink/dellink ndos recursively Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:08:32 -0700 Message-ID: <55075460.9040408@gmail.com> References: <1426515774-21038-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, sfeldma@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]:33804 "EHLO mail-oi0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934456AbbCPWIn (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:08:43 -0400 Received: by oier21 with SMTP id r21so50348454oie.1 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:08:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1426515774-21038-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/16/2015 07:22 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > There has been a discussion about if it's better to let masters to > propagate call down themself or if its better just blindly go down and > try to call ndo on every lower netdev. Turned out that more people (me > not included) like the second option better. > > This patch changes bridge setlink/dellink in that direction. > Sorry Roopa for forcing you to do it the way I liked initially. > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko Hi Jiri, I'm going to ask the dumb question here because it wasn't clear from the emails I could dredge up. Why do you want to do this? Can you add it to the commit message so in the future it is clear. Specifically what does it mean to propagate these calls down? Can you give a stacked example? Thanks, John -- John Fastabend Intel Corporation