[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1330608262.6944.10.camel@mojatatu>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:24:22 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
bhutchings@...arflare.com, roprabhu@...co.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, gregory.v.rose@...el.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
sri@...ibm.com, Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into
hardware
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 09:25 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
> Well I think NETLINK_ROUTE is the most correct type to use in this
> case. Per netlink.h its for routing and device hooks.
>
> #define NETLINK_ROUTE 0 /* Routing/device hook */
>
> And NETLINK_ROUTE msg_types use the RTM_* prefix. The _*NEIGH postfix
> were merely a copy from the SW BRIDGE code paths. How about,
>
> PF_BRIDGE:RTM_FDB_NEWENTRY
> PF_BRIDGE:RTM_FDB_DELENTRY
> PF_BRIDGE:RTM_FDB_GETENTRY
OK, I guess ;->
> And a new group RTNLGRP_FDB.
Nod.
> Also using NETLINK_ROUTE gives the correct
> rtnl locking semantics for free.
makes sense.
> Agreed. I think adding some ndo_ops for bridging offloads here would
> work. For example the DSA infrastructure and/or macvlan devices might
> need this. Along the lines of extending this RFC,
>
> [RFC] hardware bridging support for DSA switches
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/16578/
Certainly - thats one approach that is reasonable.
Where is Lennert? ;-> I changed his email address to one that i am
familiar with.
cheers,
jamal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists