[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200125161615.GD18311@lunn.ch>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:16:15 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jiri@...nulli.us,
ivecera@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com,
olteanv@...il.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v3 09/10] net: bridge: mrp: Integrate MRP into the
bridge
> br_netif_receive_skb(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> @@ -338,6 +341,17 @@ rx_handler_result_t br_handle_frame(struct sk_buff **pskb)
> return RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
> }
> }
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_MRP
> + /* If there is no MRP instance do normal forwarding */
> + if (!p->mrp_aware)
> + goto forward;
> +
> + if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_MRP))
> + return RX_HANDLER_PASS;
What MAC address is used for these MRP frames? It would make sense to
use a L2 link local destination address, since i assume they are not
supposed to be forwarded by the bridge. If so, you could extend the
if (unlikely(is_link_local_ether_addr(dest))) condition.
> +
> + if (p->state == BR_STATE_BLOCKING)
> + goto drop;
> +#endif
Is this needed? The next block of code is a switch statement on
p->state. The default case, which BR_STATE_BLOCKING should hit, is
drop.
This function is on the hot path. So we should try to optimize it as
much as possible.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists