2016-03-29 10:48:29

by Haishuang Yan

Subject: [PATCH] bridge: Allow set bridge ageing time when switchdev disabled

When NET_SWITCHDEV=n, switchdev_port_attr_set will return -EOPNOTSUPP,
we should ignore this error code and continue to set the ageing time.

Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <[email protected]>
---
net/bridge/br_stp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_stp.c b/net/bridge/br_stp.c
index e234490..9cb7044 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_stp.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_stp.c
@@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ int br_set_ageing_time(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ageing_time)
int err;

err = switchdev_port_attr_set(br->dev, &attr);
- if (err)
+ if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
return err;

br->ageing_time = t;
--
1.8.3.1

2016-03-29 22:08:50

by Ido Schimmel

Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: Allow set bridge ageing time when switchdev disabled

Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 01:48:08PM IDT, [email protected] wrote:
>When NET_SWITCHDEV=n, switchdev_port_attr_set will return -EOPNOTSUPP,
>we should ignore this error code and continue to set the ageing time.
>
>Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <[email protected]>

Fixes: c62987bbd8a1 ("bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time down to switchdev")
Acked-by: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]>

Thank you.

2016-03-30 19:40:47

by David Miller

Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: Allow set bridge ageing time when switchdev disabled

From: Haishuang Yan <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:48:08 +0800

> When NET_SWITCHDEV=n, switchdev_port_attr_set will return -EOPNOTSUPP,
> we should ignore this error code and continue to set the ageing time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <[email protected]>

Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.

> @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ int br_set_ageing_time(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ageing_time)
> int err;
>
> err = switchdev_port_attr_set(br->dev, &attr);
> - if (err)
> + if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> return err;
>
> br->ageing_time = t;

This is at least the 5th time I've had to apply a bug fix exactly like
this one.

If this doesn't convince everyone that this whole -EOPNOTSUPP
mechanism is extremely error prone, I don't know what will.

There should be only one or two strictly controlled locations that
reinterpret the return value from all of these routines that have this
special way of signalling lack of switchdev support via -EOPNOTSUPP.

It can't be spread all over the place like this, it simply does NOT work.