lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for unimplemented mrp state
    Date
    On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:20:36PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
    > The 01/18/2021 19:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
    > >
    > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:56:18PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
    > > > The reason was to stay away from STP, because you can't run these two
    > > > protocols at the same time. Even though in SW, we reuse port's state.
    > > > In our driver(which is not upstreamed), we currently implement
    > > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE and just call the
    > > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_STP_STATE.
    > >
    > > And isn't Rasmus's approach reasonable, in that it allows unmodified
    > > switchdev drivers to offload MRP port states without creating
    > > unnecessary code churn?
    >
    > I am sorry but I don't see this as the correct solution. In my opinion,
    > I would prefer to have 3 extra lines in the driver and have a better
    > view of what is happening. Than having 2 calls in the driver for
    > different protocols.

    I think the question boils down to: is a MRP-unaware driver expected to
    work with the current bridge MRP code?

    > If it is not a problem to have STP calls when you configure the MRP,
    > then why not just remove SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE?

    Good question, why not?
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-01-18 22:30    [W:8.684 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site