Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210601080538.71036-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net>
 <20210601100320.7d39e9c33a18.I0474861dad426152ac7e7afddfd7fe3ce70870e4@changeid>
 <CAHNKnsRv3r=Y7fTR-kUNVXyqeKiugXwAmzryBPvwYpxgjgBeBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <15e467334b2162728de22d393860d7c01e26ea97.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CAHNKnsQh7ikP4MCB0LhjpdqkMTjWq2ByWG4wToaXgzteYjUQaQ@mail.gmail.com> <2dbf474b0a0358627d12b1949ff98b9022943d76.camel@sipsolutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <2dbf474b0a0358627d12b1949ff98b9022943d76.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:38:49 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHNKnsQW_s6vJu2Otb91WaFebP1-wt7ZB7drxCTvnwFkPVk0SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] wwan: add interface creation support
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@linaro.org>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        m.chetan.kumar@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:56 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>>> The only thing I'd be worried about is that different implementations
>>> use it for different meanings, but I guess that's not that big a deal?
>>
>> The spectrum of sane use of the IFLA_PARENT_DEV_NAME attribute by
>> various subsystems and (or) drivers will be quite narrow. It should do
>> exactly what its name says - identify a parent device.
>
> Sure, I was more worried there could be multiple interpretations as to
> what "a parent device" is, since userspace does nothing but pass a
> string in. But we can say it should be a 'struct device' in the kernel.
>
>> We can not handle the attribute in the common rtnetlink code since
>> rtnetlink does not know the HW configuration details. That is why
>> IFLA_PARENT_DEV_NAME should be handled by the RTNL ->newlink()
>> callback. But after all the processing, the device that is identified
>> by the IFLA_PARENT_DEV_NAME attribute should appear in the
>> netdev->dev.parent field with help of SET_NETDEV_DEV(). Eventually
>> RTNL will be able to fill IFLA_PARENT_DEV_NAME during the netdevs dump
>> on its own, taking data from netdev->dev.parent.
>
> I didn't do that second part, but I guess that makes sense.
>
> Want to send a follow-up patch to my other patch? I guess you should've
> gotten it, but if not the new series is here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210602082840.85828-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net/T/#t

Yes, I saw the second version of your RFC and even attempted to
provide a full picture of why this attribute should be generic.

I will send a follow-up series tonight with parent device exporting
support and with some usage examples.

>> I assume that IFLA_PARENT_DEV_NAME could replace the IFLA_LINK
>> attribute usage in such drivers as MBIM and RMNET. But the best way to
>> evolve these drivers is to make them WWAN-subsystem-aware using the
>> WWAN interface configuration API from your proposal, IMHO.
>
> Right.

-- 
Sergey