[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9B0331B6EBBD0E4684FBFAEDA55776F919413D1D@HASMSX110.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:54:53 +0000
From: "Rosen, Rami" <rami.rosen@...el.com>
To: Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com>,
roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] bridge: Enable configuration of ageing interval for
bridges and switch devices.
Hi,
First, I agree about the need to propagate the ageing interval to switchdev devices, so that hardware based aging can be setup correctly.
Second, in this occasion, I want to mention the need to
turn off bridge ageing in the kernel as part of using switchdev devices. This is mentioned in
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next/+/master/Documentation/networking/switchdev.txt:
...
XXX: how to turn off ageing in kernel on a per-port basis or
otherwise prevent the kernel from ageing out the FDB entry?
...
One can think of the option of using value 0 of the ageing interval as an indication to turn off bridge ageing in the kernel, and any other value bigger than MIN_AGEING_INTERVAL_SECS to turn on bridge ageing.
As another option for a *per-port* boolean flag for enabling/disabling ageing, one can think of adding an IFLA_BRPORT_AGEING bool flag (and BR_AGEING) for IFLA_PROTINFO.
Regards,
Rami Rosen
Intel Corporation
--
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