[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e321ca8e6d737034d4fa19fe89f2e8373d683cae.camel@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 03:37:28 +0000
From: Elliot Ayrey <Elliot.Ayrey@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: "tobias@...dekranz.com" <tobias@...dekranz.com>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "razor@...ckwall.org" <razor@...ckwall.org>, "bridge@...ts.linux.dev"
<bridge@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
<edumazet@...gle.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"roopa@...dia.com" <roopa@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bridge: mst: Check vlan state for egress
decision
On Sat, 2024-07-06 at 00:00 +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> I think it might read a bit better if we model it like the hairpin check
> above. I.e. (special_mode || regular_condition)
>
> It's not really that the state is forwarding when mst is enabled, we
> simply ignore the port-global state in that case.
>
> > - p->state == BR_STATE_FORWARDING && br_allowed_egress(vg, skb) &&
> > + state == BR_STATE_FORWARDING && br_allowed_egress(vg, skb) &&
>
> so something like:
>
> ...
> (br_mst_is_enabled(p->br) || p->state == BR_STATE_FORWARDING) &&
> br_allowed_egress(vg, skb) && nbp_switchdev_allowed_egress(p, skb) &&
> ...
Yes you're right, that's much clearer. I'll go with that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists