[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZRLDw45mpeU6tBaK@shredder>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:42:59 +0300
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
Cc: Johannes Nixdorf <jnixdorf-oss@....de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 5/6] net: bridge: Add a configurable default
FDB learning limit
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 01:19:44PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> I'm not strongly against, just IMO it is unnecessary. I won't block the set
> because of this, but it would be nice to get input from others as
> well. If you can recompile your kernel to set a limit, it should be easier
> to change your app to set the same limit via netlink, but I'm not familiar
> with your use case.
I agree with keeping it out. We don't have it for similar knobs (e.g.,
MDB limits) and it would create a precedence for other bridge options
instead of simply using netlink and improving user space applications.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists