[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <046fad19-2f44-21d2-82b9-feb1fd62b068@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:12:26 +0200
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <roopa@...dia.com>,
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: bridge: multicast: per-port EHT
hosts limit
On 28/01/2021 03:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:35:31 +0200 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>> This set adds a simple configurable per-port EHT tracked hosts limit.
>> Patch 01 adds a default limit of 512 tracked hosts per-port, since the EHT
>> changes are still only in net-next that shouldn't be a problem. Then
>> patch 02 adds the ability to configure and retrieve the hosts limit
>> and to retrieve the current number of tracked hosts per port.
>> Let's be on the safe side and limit the number of tracked hosts by
>> default while allowing the user to increase that limit if needed.
>
> Applied, thanks!
>
> I'm curious that you add those per-port sysfs files, is this a matter
> of policy for the bridge? Seems a bit like a waste of memory at this
> point.
>
Indeed, that's how historically new port and bridge options are added.
They're all exposed via sysfs. I wonder if we should just draw the line
and continue with netlink-only attributes. Perhaps we should add a comment
about it for anyone adding new ones.
Since this is in net-next I can send a follow up to drop the sysfs part
and another to add that comment.
WDYT?
Cheers,
Nik
Powered by blists - more mailing lists