[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE4R7bCiwq6RjQ06UM2FFX1EzCrjrd=fHz0gcJzgcmPJ73hSHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:43:35 -0700
From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"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 Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:28:28PM CET, sfeldma@...il.com wrote:
>>What is the argument for not allowing stacked version of swdev_parent_id_get()?
>
> That was suppose wo identify a switch port. "ip link" will show you that
> and you see right away what is going on. If bond implements that, that
> brigs a mess. I don't like that.
A bond is an aggregator of ports and showing switch_id for bond is no
more messy than showing link speed for bond, derived from link speed
on member ports.
--
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