[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <481128e0-d4d0-3fde-6a9e-65e391bbf64d@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 18:23:25 +0200
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: extend BR_ISOLATE to full split-horizon
On 09/12/2021 18:08, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 09/12/2021 17:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:14:32 +0100 David Lamparter wrote:
>>> Split-horizon essentially just means being able to create multiple
>>> groups of isolated ports that are isolated within the group, but not
>>> with respect to each other.
>>>
>>> The intent is very different, while isolation is a policy feature,
>>> split-horizon is intended to provide functional "multiple member ports
>>> are treated as one for loop avoidance." But it boils down to the same
>>> thing in the end.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equinox@...c24.net>
>>> Cc: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
>>> Cc: Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> Does not apply to net-next, you'll need to repost even if the code is
>> good. Please put [PATCH net-next] in the subject.
>>
>
> Hi,
> For some reason this patch didn't make it to my inbox.. Anyway I was
> able to see it now online, a few comments (sorry can't do them inline due
> to missing mbox patch):
> - please drop the sysfs part, we're not extending sysfs anymore
> - split the bridge change from the driver
> - drop the /* BR_ISOLATED - previously BIT(16) */ comment
> - [IFLA_BRPORT_HORIZON_GROUP] = NLA_POLICY_MIN(NLA_S32, 0), why not just { .type = NLA_U32 } ?
> - just forbid having both set (tb[IFLA_BRPORT_ISOLATED] && tb[IFLA_BRPORT_HORIZON_GROUP])
> user-space should use just one of the two, if isolated is set then it overwrites any older
> IFLA_BRPORT_HORIZON_GROUP settings, that should simplify things considerably
Actually they'll have to be exported together always... that's unfortunate. I get
why you need the extra netlink logic, I think we'll have to keep it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists