search for: br_fdb_offloaded

Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "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? > item...
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 the...
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? > > And...