From: Petr Machata <petrm@mellanox•com>
To: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks•com>
Cc: "netdev@vger•kernel.org" <netdev@vger•kernel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox•com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox•com>,
"davem@davemloft•net" <davem@davemloft•net>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox•com>,
"jakub.kicinski@netronome•com" <jakub.kicinski@netronome•com>,
"andrew@lunn•ch" <andrew@lunn•ch>,
"stephen@networkplumber•org" <stephen@networkplumber•org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rtnetlink: Add link-down reason to RTNL messages
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:15:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8736nkidje.fsf@mellanox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJieiUjsROJTrAE3CKeYd-aDnFBfFMV+QzR469N1KQc7OxSnyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks•com> writes:
> This looks good and will be use-full. But i have some comments on the
> implementation below.
> Also, carrier can go down due to protocol down (IFLA_PROTODOWN). And I
> get asked about supporting
> reason codes or protocol owner for such protodown reason (I have not
> given it much thought yet. I will see if there is a way
> to use your series for that as well).
My thinking was that since protocol down is set from userspace, it's
under admin control, and that's where the reason signalling should be.
>> ---
>> include/net/rtnetlink.h | 3 +++
>> include/uapi/linux/if_link.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> net/core/rtnetlink.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/rtnetlink.h b/include/net/rtnetlink.h
>> index e2091bb2b3a8..cfd9e86ff0ca 100644
>> --- a/include/net/rtnetlink.h
>> +++ b/include/net/rtnetlink.h
>> @@ -110,6 +110,9 @@ struct rtnl_link_ops {
>> int (*fill_linkxstats)(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> const struct net_device *dev,
>> int *prividx, int attr);
>> + size_t (*link_down_reason_get_size)(const struct net_device *dev);
>> + int (*fill_link_down_reason)(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> + const struct net_device *dev);
>> };
>
> Any reason to restrict this to network interfaces which support rtnl_link_ops ?.
> I also saw that you added rtnl_link_ops to mlxsw for this. Which also
> means every driver will now have to declare rtnl_link_ops to use this
> ?.
> I think we should keep rtnl_link_ops to logical links like bridge,
> bonds etc (ie which support newlink and dellink).
>
> Can't we use netdev_ops for this ?. That will allow any driver to just
> support this readily.
I guess you are right.
>> +enum rtnl_link_down_reason_major {
>> + RTNL_LDR_OTHER,
>> + RTNL_LDR_NO_CABLE,
>> + RTNL_LDR_UNSUPPORTED_CABLE,
>> + RTNL_LDR_AUTONEG_FAILURE,
>> + RTNL_LDR_NO_LINK_PARTNER,
>> + RTNL_LDR_LINK_TRAINING_FAILURE,
>> + RTNL_LDR_LOGICAL_MISMATCH,
>> + RTNL_LDR_REMOTE_FAULT,
>> + RTNL_LDR_BAD_SIGNAL_INTEGRITY,
>> + RTNL_LDR_CALIBRATION_FAILURE,
>> + RTNL_LDR_POWER_BUDGET_EXCEEDED,
>> +};
>
> prefer LINK_DOWN_REASON_* or LINKDOWN_REASON_*
> (Though there is no predefined convention, the prefix RTNL makes it
> feel like a top-level attribute when its really a value for an IFLA_*
> attribute.)
OK.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-18 12:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-15 17:56 [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] RTNL: Add link-down reason reporting Petr Machata
2019-03-15 17:56 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rtnetlink: Add link-down reason to RTNL messages Petr Machata
2019-03-16 2:26 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-03-17 0:24 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-03-18 12:34 ` Petr Machata
2019-03-18 12:43 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-03-18 13:12 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-03-16 2:26 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-03-18 13:15 ` Petr Machata
2019-03-18 13:33 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-03-18 13:47 ` Petr Machata
2019-03-18 14:02 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-03-18 15:52 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-03-19 10:18 ` Petr Machata
2019-03-19 11:56 ` Michal Kubecek
2019-03-19 15:42 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-03-19 15:57 ` Petr Machata
2019-03-17 22:38 ` Roopa Prabhu
2019-03-18 0:03 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-03-28 17:59 ` Petr Machata
2019-03-28 19:51 ` Andrew Lunn
2019-04-23 13:41 ` Jiri Pirko
2019-03-18 12:15 ` Petr Machata [this message]
2019-03-15 17:56 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 2/3] mlxsw: reg: Add Port Diagnostics Database Register Petr Machata
2019-03-15 17:56 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: spectrum: Add rtnl_link_ops Petr Machata
2019-03-16 2:06 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] RTNL: Add link-down reason reporting Andrew Lunn
2019-03-18 12:11 ` Petr Machata
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8736nkidje.fsf@mellanox.com \
--to=petrm@mellanox$(echo .)com \
--cc=andrew@lunn$(echo .)ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=idosch@mellanox$(echo .)com \
--cc=jakub.kicinski@netronome$(echo .)com \
--cc=jiri@mellanox$(echo .)com \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks$(echo .)com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber$(echo .)org \
--cc=tariqt@mellanox$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox