IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Currently, on my board with multiple sja1105 switches in disjoint trees
described in commit f66a6a69f9 ("net: dsa: permit cross-chip bridging
between all trees in the system"), rebooting the board triggers the
following benign warnings:
[ 12.345566] sja1105 spi2.0: port 0 failed to notify tag_8021q VLAN 1088 deletion: -ENOENT
[ 12.353804] sja1105 spi2.0: port 0 failed to notify tag_8021q VLAN 2112 deletion: -ENOENT
[ 12.362019] sja1105 spi2.0: port 1 failed to notify tag_8021q VLAN 1089 deletion: -ENOENT
[ 12.370246] sja1105 spi2.0: port 1 failed to notify tag_8021q VLAN 2113 deletion: -ENOENT
[ 12.378466] sja1105 spi2.0: port 2 failed to notify tag_8021q VLAN 1090 deletion: -ENOENT
[ 12.386683] sja1105 spi2.0: port 2 failed to notify tag_8021q VLAN 2114 deletion: -ENOENT
Basically switch 1 calls dsa_tag_8021q_unregister, and switch 1's TX and
RX VLANs cannot be found on switch 2's CPU port.
But why would switch 2 even attempt to delete switch 1's TX and RX
tag_8021q VLANs from its CPU port? Well, because we use dsa_broadcast,
and it is supposed that it had added those VLANs in the first place
(because in dsa_port_tag_8021q_vlan_match, all CPU ports match
regardless of their tree index or switch index).
The two trees probe asynchronously, and when switch 1 probed, it called
dsa_broadcast which did not notify the tree of switch 2, because that
didn't probe yet. But during unbind, switch 2's tree _is_ probed, so it
_is_ notified of the deletion.
Before jumping to introduce a synchronization mechanism between the
probing across disjoint switch trees, let's take a step back and see
whether we _need_ to do that in the first place.
The RX and TX VLANs of switch 1 would be needed on switch 2's CPU port
only if switch 1 and 2 were part of a cross-chip bridge. And
dsa_tag_8021q_bridge_join takes care precisely of that (but if probing
was synchronous, the bridge_join would just end up bumping the VLANs'
refcount, because they are already installed by the setup path).
Since by the time the ports are bridged, all DSA trees are already set
up, and we don't need the tag_8021q VLANs of one switch installed on the
other switches during probe time, the answer is that we don't need to
fix the synchronization issue.
So make the setup and teardown code paths call dsa_port_notify, which
notifies only the local tree, and the bridge code paths call
dsa_broadcast, which let the other trees know as well.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
724395f4dc