[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230516105509.xaalfs77vrlr663u@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 13:55:09 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
Johannes Nixdorf <jnixdorf-oss@....de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] bridge: Add a limit on FDB entries
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:47:47PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> Having the current count is just a helper, if you have a high limit dumping the table
> and counting might take awhile. Thanks for the feedback, then we'll polish and move
> on with the set for a global limit.
Ok, but to be useful, the current count will have to be directly
comparable to the limit, I guess. So the current count will also be for
dynamically learned entries? Or is the plan to enforce the global limit
for any kind of FDB entries?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists