Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:34:03 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, jiri@resnulli.us,
        ivecera@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com,
        nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, anirudh.venkataramanan@intel.com,
        olteanv@gmail.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v3 04/10] net: bridge: mrp: Add generic netlink
 interface to configure MRP
Message-ID: <20200125153403.GB18311@lunn.ch>
References: <20200124161828.12206-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
 <20200124161828.12206-5-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200124161828.12206-5-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:18:22PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> Implement the generic netlink interface to configure MRP. The implementation
> will do sanity checks over the attributes and then eventually call the MRP
> interface which eventually will call the switchdev API.

Hi Horatiu

What was your thinking between adding a new generic netlink interface,
and extending the current one?

I've not looked at your user space code yet, but i assume it has to
make use of both? It needs to create the bridge and add the
interfaces. And then it needs to control the MRP state.

Allan mentioned you might get around to implementing 802.1CB? Would
that be another generic netlink interface, or would you extend the MRP
interface?

Thanks
	Andrew