[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190104135837.GB11955@splinter>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 13:58:40 +0000
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
"vivien.didelot@...il.com" <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
"nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com" <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"cphealy@...il.com" <cphealy@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] Documentation: networking: Clarify switchdev
devices behavior
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 02:47:02PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> +A switchdev driver can also refuse to support dynamic toggling of the VLAN
> +filtering knob at runtime and require a destruction of the bridge device(s) and
> +a creation of new bridge device(s) with a different VLAN filtering value to
> +ensure VLAN awareness is pushed down to the HW.
...
> +Similarly to VLAN filtering, if dynamic toggling of the IGMP snooping
I think you meant to continue this sentence with something about vetoing
the operation. Note that it is not currently possible as
br_mc_disabled_update() returns void. Can be extended if needed.
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists