From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: roopa Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/18] switchdev: remove unused NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:34:34 -0700 Message-ID: <551ABE8A.3080702@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <1427704836-8776-1-git-send-email-sfeldma@gmail.com> <1427704836-8776-14-git-send-email-sfeldma@gmail.com> <551951CD.1060301@cumulusnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netdev , =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFDDrXJrbw==?= , Guenter Roeck , Florian Fainelli To: Scott Feldman Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:35000 "EHLO mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754359AbbCaPeg (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:34:36 -0400 Received: by patj18 with SMTP id j18so23000981pat.2 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:34:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 3/30/15, 2:20 PM, Scott Feldman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:38 AM, roopa wrote: >> On 3/30/15, 1:40 AM, sfeldma@gmail.com wrote: >>> From: Scott Feldman >>> >>> Flag is no longer needed so remove it. Using the attr get/set recurse >>> algo >>> obsoletes the flag. Setting the flag on bond/team interface, even when >>> the >>> consitient member ports didn't have flag set was confusing. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman >> >> The flag was there to avoid the recursive lowerdev walk where possible. >> bond will have the flag if any one slave can have it. You don't walk the >> bond if it does not have the flag. > Ok, I see. I'll remove this patch from set. Should I put the > NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD check in the get/set attr wrappers? > that would be nice. Thanks scott