lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v2 2/7] net: switchdev: support static FDB addresses
    On 15-08-05 23:28:15, Scott Feldman wrote:
    > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Vivien Didelot
    > <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
    > > This patch adds a is_static boolean to the switchdev_obj_fdb structure,
    > > in order to set the ndm_state to either NUD_NOARP or NUD_REACHABLE.
    > >
    > > Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
    > > ---
    > > include/net/switchdev.h | 1 +
    > > net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 2 +-
    > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
    > >
    > > diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
    > > index e90e1a0..0e296b8 100644
    > > --- a/include/net/switchdev.h
    > > +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
    > > @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ struct switchdev_obj {
    > > struct switchdev_obj_fdb { /* PORT_FDB */
    > > u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
    > > u16 vid;
    > > + bool is_static;
    >
    > What do you think about changing this to u16 ndm_state? That way, it
    > can be used on input (fdb add) and output (fdb dump), and the driver
    > can privately track the state, kind of like how the bridge keeps
    > is_static, is_local, etc.

    I'm OK with the change. Should we consider NUD_NONE (0) a valid value?

    > > } fdb;
    > > } u;
    > > };
    > > diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
    > > index 9db87a3..e9d1cac 100644
    > > --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
    > > +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
    > > @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static int switchdev_port_fdb_dump_cb(struct net_device *dev,
    > > ndm->ndm_flags = NTF_SELF;
    > > ndm->ndm_type = 0;
    > > ndm->ndm_ifindex = dev->ifindex;
    > > - ndm->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE;
    > > + ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.is_static ? NUD_NOARP : NUD_REACHABLE;

    In other word, do we prefer this:

    ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.ndm_state == NUD_NONE ?
    NUD_REACHABLE : obj->u.fdb.ndm_state;

    Or this (meaning switchdev users cannot leave it blank and must at least
    set NUD_REACHABLE themselves):

    ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.ndm_state;

    Thanks,
    -v


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-08-06 16:41    [W:2.866 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site