[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210803082316.2910759-1-dqfext@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:23:16 +0800
From: DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Woudstra <ericwouds@...il.com>,
René van Dorst <opensource@...rst.com>,
Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v2 3/4] net: dsa: mt7530: set STP state also on filter ID 1
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 12:00:06AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>
> So then change the port STP state only for FID 1 and resend. Any other
> reason why this patch series is marked RFC? It looked okay to me otherwise.
Okay, will resend with that change and without RFC.
By the way, if I were to implement .port_fast_age, should I only flush
dynamically learned FDB entries? What about MDB entries?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists