[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FFEDCF9956066D4D97C463CC178C7F69F23378@SJEXCHMB06.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:29:38 +0000
From: Viswanath Bandaru <vbandaru@...adcom.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"gospo@...ulusnetworks.com" <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com" <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] Add NTF_EXT_AGED to control FDB ageing
in SW or HW
> -----Original Message-----
> >
> >I agree, in fact, most of the HW I have access to only has a global age
> >timer configuration knob. Is this configurable on a per-port basis for
> >higher end switches, or even maybe per-FDB entry?
>
> I'm currently not aware of any hw which does not have global age timer.
> But I believe that they will appear. The model that we have now, to
> propagate aging setting of bridge down is more general and should be ok.
>
> Drivers should probably take care of multi bridge setup with different aging
> setup. Maybe to find minimal time and print a warning?
>
Setting up the minimal time in such a scenario is good.
Should we also consider the possibility bridges containing ports from different devices (and therefore different drivers) ? If that is a possibility, I think the bridge module should take responsibility of finding out the minimal time to pushing to all involved drivers.
--
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