[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190117144941.GA24079@splinter>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 14:49:42 +0000
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"vivien.didelot@...il.com" <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
"ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
"ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org" <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
"nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com" <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/14] net: vlan: Propagate MC addresses with VID
through switchdev
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:00:58PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> The VLAN real device could be an Ethernet switch port and that switch
> might have VLAN filtering globally enabled (because of a bridge
> requesting VLAN filtering on the switch on another port) and so when
> programming multicast addresses, we need the multicast filter
> programming to be aware of the correct VLAN ID as well.
This looks like a quirk of a specific device. How bad is it to patch the
driver to add a multicast address for every configured VLAN?
Also, I think it's weird that we have one API to program address and a
completely different API (via switchdev) to program address+VID pairs.
Extending current API might make more sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists