From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FECC433E9 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 17:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324C32313B for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 17:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727618AbhAFRJN (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:09:13 -0500 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.229]:54221 "EHLO new3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727226AbhAFRJM (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:09:12 -0500 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4850D58048F; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:08:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=6QXKLf NS1szqKmB7r4aA3lByGUvyaS0zLILl/X004oc=; b=B56hUbRgC/Xb+LKKjC5XDA vJJ12Y7V2lYGAbdr3+jLp7/xWPwTbO4onjGqhjTDtAoi9VWsQ+3WHmmMAAeKkfag kFW2UEZZJuAYWBIS0yrP+1+x8zeUZFvJjldMGskYzcABqf+y/5ChK8DBPJL7bCKJ tMKQ3p7Mq20fhMVuOYCrzF7VakQmWC1hEna6KPqwndOvSB9zXPaoY3gC64H0Iqgw FHDCsPI6C1EglcqkxK2dSsebxqypiSQ5NcfWgL6Jz1j/dAJaWEHW0gXScgM/+SxE ME74nYJmI3aPLVlX/Z6bMdiX21su5neS8cpfutMIPtH7j3SDkWLh2mExCT1xFV3g == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdegtddgtdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefkughoucfu tghhihhmmhgvlhcuoehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpedtffekkeefudffveegueejffejhfetgfeuuefgvedtieehudeuueekhfduheel teenucfkphepkeegrddvvdelrdduheefrdeggeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (igld-84-229-153-44.inter.net.il [84.229.153.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3F7311080057; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:08:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 19:08:18 +0200 From: Ido Schimmel To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli , Andrew Lunn , Vivien Didelot , Kurt Kanzenbach , Hauke Mehrtens , Woojung Huh , Microchip Linux Driver Support , Sean Wang , Landen Chao , Claudiu Manoil , Alexandre Belloni , Linus Walleij , Vadym Kochan , Taras Chornyi , Jiri Pirko , Ido Schimmel , Grygorii Strashko , Ioana Ciornei , Ivan Vecera Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 01/10] net: switchdev: remove vid_begin -> vid_end range from VLAN objects Message-ID: <20210106170818.GA1080217@shredder.lan> References: <20210106131006.577312-1-olteanv@gmail.com> <20210106131006.577312-2-olteanv@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210106131006.577312-2-olteanv@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 03:09:57PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Let's go off and finish the job of commit 29ab586c3d83 by deleting the > bogus iteration through the VLAN ranges from the drivers. Some aspects > of this feature never made too much sense in the first place. For > example, what is a range of VLANs all having the BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID > flag supposed to mean, when a port can obviously have a single pvid? The > switchdev drivers have so far interpreted this to mean that the last > VLAN in the range should be the only one which should get programmed > with that attribute. See commit 6623c60dc28e ("bridge: vlan: enforce no pvid flag in vlan ranges") > Of the existing switchdev pieces of hardware, it appears that only > Mellanox Spectrum supports offloading more than one VLAN at a time. > I have kept that code internal to the driver, because there is some more > bookkeeping that makes use of it, but I deleted it from the switchdev > API. But since the switchdev support for ranges has already been de > facto deleted by a Mellanox employee and nobody noticed for 4 years, I'm > going to assume it's not a biggie. Which code are you referring to? > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean For the switchdev and mlxsw parts: Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel I applied the series to our queue, so I should have regression results tomorrow