Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] net: add ndo_update_offloads for offload computation

Hangbin Liu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.network.bridge,gmane.linux.network,gmane.linux.kernel
Message-ID <abtZTceO0xHKf1F3@fedora>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:29:25AM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2026-03-18, 01:15:20 +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 04:14:35PM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > 2026-03-16, 12:26:09 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > > Add a new ndo_update_offloads callback to net_device_ops that allows
> > > > devices to compute and update their offload features during feature
> > > > updates.
> > > > 
> > > > This callback enables master devices to recompute their features
> > > > based on current slave device configuration. This is particularly
> > > > useful for bonding, bridging, team, and failover devices that need
> > > > to aggregate features from their lower devices.
> > > > 
> > > > The callback is optional and only implemented by devices that need
> > > > dynamic offload feature computation.
> > > 
> > > Maybe a dumb idea (and sorry to suggest this quite late in your
> > > submissions): since all implementations of this callback are only
> > > calling netdev_compute_master_upper_features(), does this need to be a
> > > new ndo, or could this be some kind of flag within struct net_device
> > 
> > Ideally all dev with IFF_MASTER should re-compute the offload. But at present
> > some master devices do have this flag, or have their own offload
> > implementation.
> > 
> > Do you mean add a new private flag, like IFF_RECOMPUTE_OFFLOAD? For the second
> > parameter, maybe we can pass false for bridge specifically.
> 
> I hadn't thought specifically about where to store that flag. As a
> private flag, why not (this should be internal to the kernel, so not a
> uapi flag like IFF_MASTER), but priv_flags is marked as "hotpath" now,
> so maybe something similar to needs_free_netdev or
> netns_immutable. Either way, then devices are free to do their own
> magic, or request the core to call
> netdev_compute_master_upper_features() for them in some common
> locations. Does that makes sense?

This looks better than private flags. I just feel this magic hide a little
deep for a common master feature.

Thanks
Hangbin
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.