Linux Ethernet Bridging - Jan 2020 - [Bridge] [RFC net-next v3 03/10] net: bridge: mrp: Add MRP interface used by netlink

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:37:26PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur
wrote:
> The 01/24/2020 18:43, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
the content is safe
> > 
> > > br_mrp_flush - will flush the FDB.
> > 
> > How does this differ from a normal bridge flush? I assume there is a
> > way for user space to flush the bridge FDB.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If I seen corectly the normal bridge flush will clear the entire FDB for
> all the ports of the bridge. In this case it is require to clear FDB
> entries only for the ring ports.
Maybe it would be better to extend the current bridge netlink call to
be able to pass an optional interface to be flushed?  I'm not sure it
is a good idea to have two APIs doing very similar things.

   Andrew

On 25.01.2020 16:20, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
content is safe
>
>On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:37:26PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>> The 01/24/2020 18:43, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
know the content is safe
>> >
>> > > br_mrp_flush - will flush the FDB.
>> >
>> > How does this differ from a normal bridge flush? I assume there is
a
>> > way for user space to flush the bridge FDB.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I seen corectly the normal bridge flush will clear the entire FDB
for
>> all the ports of the bridge. In this case it is require to clear FDB
>> entries only for the ring ports.
>
>Maybe it would be better to extend the current bridge netlink call to
>be able to pass an optional interface to be flushed?  I'm not sure it
>is a good idea to have two APIs doing very similar things.
I agree.

And when looking at this again, I start to think that we should have
extended the existing netlink interface with new commands, instead of
adding a generic netlink.

/Allan