[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a1fc2c378816489e15995eb481c318eb@kapio-technology.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 09:51:32 +0200
From: netdev@...io-technology.com
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.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 2022-08-10 09:21, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> >
>> > 1. It discards packets with matching DMAC, regardless of ingress port. I
>> > read the document [1] you linked to in a different reply and could not
>> > find anything against this approach, so this might be fine or at least
>> > not very significant.
>> >
>> > Note that this means that "locked" entries need to be notified to device
>> > drivers so that they will install a matching entry in the HW FDB.
>>
I just want to be completely sure as what should be done in version 5
with locked entries from the bridge, as - if I should implement it so
that they are sent to all the drivers, and the drivers then ignore them
if they don't need to take action? (for the mv88e6xxx driver, it does
not need them and can ignore but other drivers might need.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists