lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: bridge: add dynamic flag to switchdev notifier
    On 2023-02-01 19:10, Ido Schimmel wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 06:34:25PM +0100, Hans J. Schultz wrote:
    >> To be able to add dynamic FDB entries to drivers from userspace, the
    >> dynamic flag must be added when sending RTM_NEWNEIGH events down.
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <netdev@kapio-technology.com>
    >> ---
    >> include/net/switchdev.h | 1 +
    >> net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 2 ++
    >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
    >>
    >> diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
    >> index ca0312b78294..aaf918d4ba67 100644
    >> --- a/include/net/switchdev.h
    >> +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
    >> @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info {
    >> u8 added_by_user:1,
    >> is_local:1,
    >> locked:1,
    >> + is_dyn:1,
    >> offloaded:1;
    >> };
    >>
    >> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
    >> index 7eb6fd5bb917..4420fcbbfdb2 100644
    >> --- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
    >> +++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
    >> @@ -136,6 +136,8 @@ static void br_switchdev_fdb_populate(struct
    >> net_bridge *br,
    >> item->added_by_user = test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER, &fdb->flags);
    >> item->offloaded = test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &fdb->flags);
    >> item->is_local = test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags);
    >> + item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags) &&
    >
    > Why not 'is_static' and be consistent with the bridge flag like all the
    > other fields?
    >
    > Regardless of how you name this field, it is irrelevant for
    > 'SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE' notifications that all add FDB entries
    > with the 'BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN' flag set, which makes
    > 'BR_FDB_STATIC' irrelevant.
    >
    >> + item->added_by_user;
    >
    > Unclear why this is needed...
    >

    The answer to those two questions lies in my earlier correspondences
    (with Oltean) on the RFC version.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-03-27 00:07    [W:4.654 / U:0.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site