Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:04:25 +0200 | From | netdev@kapio-te ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: add locked entry fdb flag to extend locked port feature |
| |
On 2022-08-29 09:52, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 12:23:30PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com > wrote: >> On 2022-08-27 17:19, Ido Schimmel wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:45:33PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: >> > > >> > > nbp_switchdev_frame_mark(p, skb); >> > > @@ -943,6 +946,10 @@ static int br_setport(struct net_bridge_port >> > > *p, struct nlattr *tb[], >> > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_NEIGH_SUPPRESS, >> > > BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS); >> > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_ISOLATED, BR_ISOLATED); >> > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_LOCKED, BR_PORT_LOCKED); >> > > + br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_MAB, BR_PORT_MAB); >> > > + >> > > + if (!(p->flags & BR_PORT_LOCKED)) >> > > + p->flags &= ~BR_PORT_MAB; >> >> The reason for this is that I wanted it to be so that if you have MAB >> enabled (and locked of course) and unlock the port, it will >> automatically >> clear both flags instead of having to first disable MAB and then >> unlock the >> port. > > User space can just do: > > # bridge link set dev swp1 locked off mab off > > I prefer not to push such logic into the kernel and instead fail > explicitly. I won't argue if more people are in favor.
I shall do it as you suggest. It sounds fair. :-)
| |