Linux Ethernet Bridging - Jan 2023 - [Bridge] [RFC PATCH net-next 1/5] net: bridge: add dynamic flag to switchdev notifier

On 2023-01-18 00:08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:57:10PM +0100, Hans J. Schultz wrote:
>> To be able to add dynamic FDB entries to drivers from userspace, the
>> dynamic flag must be added when sending RTM_NEWNEIGH events down.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <netdev at kapio-technology.com>
>> ---
>>  include/net/switchdev.h   | 1 +
>>  net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
>> index ca0312b78294..aaf918d4ba67 100644
>> --- a/include/net/switchdev.h
>> +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
>> @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info {
>>  	u8 added_by_user:1,
>>  	   is_local:1,
>>  	   locked:1,
>> +	   is_dyn:1,
>>  	   offloaded:1;
>>  };
>> 
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
>> index 7eb6fd5bb917..60c05a00a1df 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
>> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ static void br_switchdev_fdb_populate(struct 
>> net_bridge *br,
>>  	item->added_by_user = test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER,
&fdb->flags);
>>  	item->offloaded = test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &fdb->flags);
>>  	item->is_local = test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags);
>> +	item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
> 
> Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave
any
> further interpretations up to the consumer?
> 
My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries, 
thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a 
switchdev_notifier_fdb_info struct the common case does not need to be 
entered.
Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct 
and if it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they 
will get dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find 
such an error.
>>  	item->locked = false;
>>  	item->info.dev = (!p || item->is_local) ? br->dev :
p->dev;
>>  	item->info.ctx = ctx;
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:14:00PM +0100, netdev at kapio-technology.com
wrote:
> > > +	item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
> > 
> > Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and
leave any
> > further interpretations up to the consumer?
> 
> My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries,
> thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a switchdev_notifier_fdb_info
> struct the common case does not need to be entered.
> Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct and
if
> it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they will
get
> dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find such an
error.
I'll leave it up to bridge maintainers if this is preferable to patching
all callers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE such that they set is_static=true.