[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220518114555.piutpdmdzvst2cvu@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 14:45:55 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 1/2] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Fix start index in
gswip_port_fdb()
Hi Martin,
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 09:40:14PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> The first N entries in priv->vlans are reserved for managing ports which
> are not part of a bridge. Use priv->hw_info->max_ports to consistently
> access per-bridge entries at index 7. Starting at
> priv->hw_info->cpu_port (6) is harmless in this case because
> priv->vlan[6].bridge is always NULL so the comparison result is always
> false (which results in this entry being skipped).
>
> Fixes: 58c59ef9e930c4 ("net: dsa: lantiq: Add Forwarding Database access")
> Acked-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
> ---
The patch, as well as other improvements you might want to bring to the gswip driver
(we have more streamlined support in DSA now for FDB isolation, see ds->fdb_isolation)
is appreciated.
But I don't think that a code cleanup patch that makes no functional
difference, and isn't otherwise needed by other backported patches,
should be sent to the "net" tree, and be backported to "stable" later?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists