[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE4R7bDpsnqCjayXpsbhn-tYuuiiFuAgsZPufHCUh+KYSr+9mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:26:30 -0700
From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"Arad, Ronen" <ronen.arad@...el.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2] switchdev: bridge: drop hardware
forwarded packets
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:30 PM, roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 3/20/15, 3:37 PM, Scott Feldman wrote:
[cut]
>>
>> I went back and read the thread just to remind me what the pros/cons
>> where. I think the mixed case isn't a concern since this
>> BR_FLOOD_BCAST check is made on egress to the bridge port. So only
>> clear BR_FLOOD_BCAST on hw switch ports (if hw did the flood already
>> amongst its ports), and leave it set for non-hw-ports. It seems the
>> patch should mostly be a clone of how BR_FLOOD is handled. Is there
>> more to it?
>
> That may work. But, we have recently moved igmp handling to software in
> kernel and i was trying to make this work for that case. I am going to try what you
> suggest by finding a work around for the igmp case.
Wait, you lost me on the IGMP comment...that wasn't in your commit
msg. Do you mean IGMP snooping? What are you trying to get to work?
It's hard to understand the pieces you're considering without example
implementations. Can you use rocker or DSA to show example?
--
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