Vladimir Oltean
2022-Nov-03 22:31 UTC
[Bridge] [RFC PATCH net-next 10/16] mlxsw: spectrum_switchdev: Add support for locked FDB notifications
Hi Ido, On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:32:10AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 10:23:07AM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > Right. I'm quite reluctant to add the MAB flag to > > BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD as part of this patchset for the simple reason > > that it is not really needed. I'm not worried about someone adding it > > later when it is actually needed. We will probably catch the omission > > during code review. Worst case, we have a selftest that will break, > > notifying us that a bug fix is needed. > > For drivers which don't emit SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE but do offload > BR_PORT_LOCKED (like mv88e6xxx), things will not work correctly on day 1 > of BR_PORT_MAB because they are not told MAB is enabled, so they have no > way of rejecting it until things work properly with the offload in place. > > It's the same reason for which we have BR_HAIRPIN_MODE | BR_ISOLATED | > BR_MULTICAST_TO_UNICAST in BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD, even if nobody acts > upon them.Do you have any comment on this? You resent the BR_PORT_MAB patches without even an ack that yes, mv88e6xxx will not support MAB being enabled on a bridge port, and will not reject the configuration either, and that's ok/intended. Do you think this is not true? Irrelevant? The "fix" (to implement offloading) might come in this development cycle, or it might not.
Ido Schimmel
2022-Nov-03 22:54 UTC
[Bridge] [RFC PATCH net-next 10/16] mlxsw: spectrum_switchdev: Add support for locked FDB notifications
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 10:31:52PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:> Hi Ido, > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:32:10AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 10:23:07AM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > > Right. I'm quite reluctant to add the MAB flag to > > > BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD as part of this patchset for the simple reason > > > that it is not really needed. I'm not worried about someone adding it > > > later when it is actually needed. We will probably catch the omission > > > during code review. Worst case, we have a selftest that will break, > > > notifying us that a bug fix is needed. > > > > For drivers which don't emit SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE but do offload > > BR_PORT_LOCKED (like mv88e6xxx), things will not work correctly on day 1 > > of BR_PORT_MAB because they are not told MAB is enabled, so they have no > > way of rejecting it until things work properly with the offload in place. > > > > It's the same reason for which we have BR_HAIRPIN_MODE | BR_ISOLATED | > > BR_MULTICAST_TO_UNICAST in BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD, even if nobody acts > > upon them. > > Do you have any comment on this?Sorry, forgot to reply... I added a patch (see below) to the offload set. If the bridge patches are accepted and we have disagreements on the offload part I can always split out this patch and send it separately so that mv88e6xxx rejects MAB in 6.2. commit ebdd7363f8c1802af63c35f74d6922b727617a7d Author: Ido Schimmel <idosch at nvidia.com> Date: Mon Oct 31 19:36:36 2022 +0200 bridge: switchdev: Reflect MAB bridge port flag to device drivers Reflect the 'BR_PORT_MAB' flag to device drivers so that: * Drivers that support MAB could act upon the flag being toggled. * Drivers that do not support MAB will prevent MAB from being enabled. Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch at nvidia.com> Notes: v1: * New patch. diff --git a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c index 8a0abe35137d..7eb6fd5bb917 100644 --- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ bool nbp_switchdev_allowed_egress(const struct net_bridge_port *p, } /* Flags that can be offloaded to hardware */ -#define BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD (BR_LEARNING | BR_FLOOD | \ +#define BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD (BR_LEARNING | BR_FLOOD | BR_PORT_MAB | \ BR_MCAST_FLOOD | BR_BCAST_FLOOD | BR_PORT_LOCKED | \ BR_HAIRPIN_MODE | BR_ISOLATED | BR_MULTICAST_TO_UNICAST)