Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "br_fdb_offload".
Did you mean:
br_fdb_offloaded
2023 Mar 27
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards drivers
...hould be
able to notice exactly the behavior change I am talking about.
In your own commit message, it says:
Author: Hans J. Schultz <netdev at kapio-technology.com>
net: bridge: ensure FDB offloaded flag is handled as needed
Since user added entries in the bridge FDB will get the BR_FDB_OFFLOADED
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
flag set, we do not want the bridge to age those entries and we want the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
entries to be deleted in the bridge upon an SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE...
2023 Mar 27
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards drivers
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 14:52, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> By the way, there is a behavior change here.
>
> Before:
>
> $ ip link add br0 type bridge && ip link set br0 up
> $ ip link set swp0 master br0 && ip link set swp0 up
> $ bridge fdb add dev swp0 00:01:02:03:04:05 master dynamic
> [ 70.010181] mscc_felix 0000:00:00.5:
2023 Mar 18
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: add dynamic flag to switchdev notifier
...v.c
index de18e9c1d7a7..9707d3fdb396 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
@@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ 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);
item->locked = false;
item->info.dev = (!p || item->is_local) ? br->dev : p->dev;
item->info.ctx = ctx;
--
2.34.1
2023 Jan 17
1
[Bridge] [RFC PATCH net-next 1/5] net: bridge: add dynamic flag to switchdev notifier
...0c05a00a1df 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?
> it...
2023 Jan 18
1
[Bridge] [RFC PATCH net-next 1/5] net: bridge: add dynamic flag to switchdev notifier
...- 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 t...
2023 Mar 27
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards drivers
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 19:00, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
> A reasonable question you could ask yourself is: why do my BR_FDB_OFFLOADED
> entries have this flag in the software bridge in the first place?
> Did I add code for it? Is it because there is some difference between
> mv88e6xxx and ocelot/felix, or is it because dsa_fdb_offload_notify()
> gets called in both cases from generic code just the same?
>
> An...