[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220721115447.cxfiromwtxw4ukv4@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:54:47 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: netdev@...io-technology.com
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry
flag to drivers
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 06:10:22PM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com wrote:
> Okay, I see the problem you refer to. I think that we have to accept some
> limitations unless you think that just zeroing the specific port bit in the
> DPV would be a better solution, and there wouldn't be caveats with that
> besides having to do a FDB search etc to get the correct DPV if I am not too
> mistaken.
No, honestly I believe that what we should do to improve the limitation
is to have proper ATU database separation between one VLAN-unaware
bridge and another (i.e. what is now MV88E6XXX_FID_BRIDGED to be one FID
per bridge).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists