Linux Ethernet Bridging - May 2018 - [Bridge] [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: bridge: Notify about !added_by_user FDB entries

On 01/05/18 20:04, Petr Machata wrote:
> Do not automatically bail out on sending notifications about activity on
> non-user-added FDB entries. Instead, notify about this activity except
> for cases where the activity itself originates in a notification, to
> avoid sending duplicate notifications.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm at mellanox.com>
> ---
>   net/bridge/br.c           |  4 ++--
>   net/bridge/br_fdb.c       | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>   net/bridge/br_private.h   |  4 ++--
>   net/bridge/br_switchdev.c |  2 +-
>   4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
Hi Petr,
We already have 7 different fdb delete functions, I'm really not a fan of
adding yet another one for such trivial change.
Why don't you just add the new notify parameter to the already existing
fdb_delete() ? (actually about the name see below)
IMO it's confusing - if one wants a notification then use fdb_delete() or
__fdb_delete(true)
vs __fdb_delete(false) if a notification is not required. I think simply having
the last
parameter everywhere for fdb_delete() shows the intention clearer and avoids
another
fdb delete function.

Another point, the notify parameter has a confusing name in this context because
you're controlling the switchdev notifications not the rtnetlink ones.
I'd suggest
changing the name to something more descriptive like swdev_notify, otherwise you
could get the funny end result of calling __fdb_notify() with notify == false
which
to me means don't notify. :-)

Also please add the bridge maintainers to the CC list.

Thanks,
  Nik

Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay at cumulusnetworks.com> writes:
> On 01/05/18 20:04, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Do not automatically bail out on sending notifications about activity
on
>> non-user-added FDB entries. Instead, notify about this activity except
>> for cases where the activity itself originates in a notification, to
>> avoid sending duplicate notifications.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm at mellanox.com>
>> ---
>>   net/bridge/br.c           |  4 ++--
>>   net/bridge/br_fdb.c       | 40
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>   net/bridge/br_private.h   |  4 ++--
>>   net/bridge/br_switchdev.c |  2 +-
>>   4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Hi Petr,
> We already have 7 different fdb delete functions, I'm really not a fan
of
> adding yet another one for such trivial change.
> Why don't you just add the new notify parameter to the already existing
> fdb_delete() ? (actually about the name see below)
> IMO it's confusing - if one wants a notification then use fdb_delete()
or __fdb_delete(true)
> vs __fdb_delete(false) if a notification is not required. I think simply
having the last
> parameter everywhere for fdb_delete() shows the intention clearer and
avoids another
> fdb delete function.
All right--this is how I had it written actually, but then decided to do
this wrapping, because so many of the calls end up being true. I'll send
a v2 with just the extra argument.
> Another point, the notify parameter has a confusing name in this context
because
> you're controlling the switchdev notifications not the rtnetlink ones.
I'd suggest
> changing the name to something more descriptive like swdev_notify,
otherwise you
> could get the funny end result of calling __fdb_notify() with notify ==
false which
> to me means don't notify. :-)
OK, swdev_notify it will be.
> Also please add the bridge maintainers to the CC list.
bridge at lists.linux-foundation.org? I saw it's a moderated list and for
some reason that made me think it's not meant for patch postings. I'll
add them the next time.

Thanks,
Petr