[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4749d6b6-c20c-fd20-f904-accee3f1947a@blackwall.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 12:51:14 +0300
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, netdev@...io-technology.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: add locked entry fdb flag to
extend locked port feature
On 29/08/2022 10:52, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 12:23:30PM +0200, netdev@...io-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.
+1
I prefer to fail explicitly too, actually I also had a comment about this but
somehow have managed to delete it before sending my review. :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists