Date:	Wed, 28 May 2014 18:53:36 -0700
From:	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, wkok@...ulusnetworks.com,
	sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com, shm@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] bridge: Add master device name to bridge fdb
 show

On 5/28/14, 1:00 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 05/28/2014 01:40 AM, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>
>> (This patch depends on net-next patch titled
>> "Add bridge ifindex to bridge fdb notify msgs")
>>
>> This patch adds master dev name from NDA_MASTER netlink attribute
>>   to bridge fdb show output
>>
>> current iproute2 tries to print 'master' in the output if NTF_MASTER
>> is present. But, kernel today does not set NTF_MASTER during dump
>> requests. Which means I have not seen iproute2 bridge cmd print 'master' atall.
>> This patch overrides the NTF_MASTER flag if NDA_MASTER attribute is present.
>>
>> Example output:
>>
>> before this patch:
>> # bridge fdb show
>> 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 permanent
>> 44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 permanent
>> 44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 permanent
>>
>> After this patch:
>> # bridge fdb show
>> 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 master br-2003 permanent
>> 44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 master br-2003 permanent
>> 44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 master br-2004 permanent
> 'master' is already a reserved word in the bridge command and
> has a slightly different connotation. May be replace it with
> 'bridge' or something similar.
I am not so convinced about the 'bridge' keyword. The way i see it is: I 
am just adding more context to the existing 'master' keyword. In the 
cases i am pointing out above 'master' is a bridge.
If the only argument is that it changes existing output, ...i agree. I 
have expressed slight concerns about that before.
>
>> For comparision with the above, below is the output for NTF_SELF today,
>> # bridge fdb show
>> 33:33:00:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
>> 01:00:5e:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
>> 33:33:ff:00:01:cc dev eth0 self permanent
>>
>> If change in output is a concern, 'master' can be put at the end of the fdb
>> output line or made optional with -d[etails] option.
> As Stephen always mentions, iproute commands have to be invertable.
> In other words, what you get out of the show command you should
> be able to feed back into a set command.
>
> As such, it would probably be a good thing to support
> bridge fdb set 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 bridge br-2003 permanent
We did discuss this on the other thread (RFC), and it does not seem 
necessary.
two things:
- like i indicated above, introducing 'bridge' to mean  'master' seems 
to add more confusion and
seems redundant. But, maybe that's just me.
- having user specify master when kernel can derive it
seems unnecessary (agree that for code symmetry we could add master 
during sets but make it optional)

>
> and I think this ends up being something very close to what
> Jamal already proposed.
>
> May be work together and come up with a single syntax.
Ack.
looking at jamals patch for fdb show filters,  if i consider my approach 
of using 'master' to represent a bridge,
his syntax would look like,

bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV]
bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV] [master BRDEV]

Thanks,
Roopa







--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists