search for: switchdev_fdb_del_to_bridge

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "switchdev_fdb_del_to_bridge".

2023 Mar 27
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards drivers
...ge 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ existing drivers do not emit this event. Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <netdev at kapio-technology.com> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c index e...
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 27
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards drivers
...me 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 if dsa_fdb_offload_notify() gets called in both cases just the same, > but no other driver except for mv88e6xxx emits the SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE > which you've patched the bridge to expect in this series, then what exactly > is surprising in the fact that offloaded and dynamic FDB entries now become > stale, but are not removed from the software bridge as they were before? Yes, I see I have missed that the dsa layer already ad...