Message-ID: <20140530073614.0a48f2bd@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2014 07:36:14 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, wkok@...ulusnetworks.com,
	sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com, shm@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] bridge: Add master device name to bridge fdb
 show

On Wed, 28 May 2014 18:53:36 -0700
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:

> On 5/28/14, 1:00 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > On 05/28/2014 01:40 AM, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
> >> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> >>
> >> (This patch depends on net-next patch titled
> >> "Add bridge ifindex to bridge fdb notify msgs")
> >>
> >> This patch adds master dev name from NDA_MASTER netlink attribute
> >>   to bridge fdb show output
> >>
> >> current iproute2 tries to print 'master' in the output if NTF_MASTER
> >> is present. But, kernel today does not set NTF_MASTER during dump
> >> requests. Which means I have not seen iproute2 bridge cmd print 'master' atall.
> >> This patch overrides the NTF_MASTER flag if NDA_MASTER attribute is present.
> >>
> >> Example output:
> >>
> >> before this patch:
> >> # bridge fdb show
> >> 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 permanent
> >> 44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 permanent
> >> 44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 permanent
> >>
> >> After this patch:
> >> # bridge fdb show
> >> 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 master br-2003 permanent
> >> 44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 master br-2003 permanent
> >> 44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 master br-2004 permanent
> > 'master' is already a reserved word in the bridge command and
> > has a slightly different connotation. May be replace it with
> > 'bridge' or something similar.
> I am not so convinced about the 'bridge' keyword. The way i see it is: I 
> am just adding more context to the existing 'master' keyword. In the 
> cases i am pointing out above 'master' is a bridge.
> If the only argument is that it changes existing output, ...i agree. I 
> have expressed slight concerns about that before.
> >
> >> For comparision with the above, below is the output for NTF_SELF today,
> >> # bridge fdb show
> >> 33:33:00:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
> >> 01:00:5e:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
> >> 33:33:ff:00:01:cc dev eth0 self permanent
> >>
> >> If change in output is a concern, 'master' can be put at the end of the fdb
> >> output line or made optional with -d[etails] option.
> > As Stephen always mentions, iproute commands have to be invertable.
> > In other words, what you get out of the show command you should
> > be able to feed back into a set command.
> >
> > As such, it would probably be a good thing to support
> > bridge fdb set 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 bridge br-2003 permanent
> We did discuss this on the other thread (RFC), and it does not seem 
> necessary.
> two things:
> - like i indicated above, introducing 'bridge' to mean  'master' seems 
> to add more confusion and
> seems redundant. But, maybe that's just me.
> - having user specify master when kernel can derive it
> seems unnecessary (agree that for code symmetry we could add master 
> during sets but make it optional)
> 
> >
> > and I think this ends up being something very close to what
> > Jamal already proposed.
> >
> > May be work together and come up with a single syntax.
> Ack.
> looking at jamals patch for fdb show filters,  if i consider my approach 
> of using 'master' to represent a bridge,
> his syntax would look like,
> 
> bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV]
> bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV] [master BRDEV]

I prefer bridge keyword since master is not used in IEEE 802
documents.
--
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