[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6XLe0jkMTP=SkFDhMaWiubHTj7zyJwbbOcoCkkhYpBpdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:05:18 -0800
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/6] networking: address root block upon initialization
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@...not-panic.com> wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
<-- snip -->
> As I tested using the root block preference I noticed that if a net_device
> slave under the bridge gets the designated root port prior to setting in
> userspace the root_block feature enabling the feature won't kick the
> bridge to remove that net_device from the designated port. I addressed
> that issue and also upkeeping the initial random MAC address given to
> the bridge as if othwerwise we'd end up with a zero MAC address bridge
> if we root block all ports. I have only done local tests I'd appreciate a
> bit more wide test coverage and review.
Stephen,
I should note that even if we discard patches 4-6 patches for an
alternative implementation patches 1-3 should still be applicable for
review. Let me know what you think of those.
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists