From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: mask forwarding of IEEE 802 local multicast
 groups
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:41:06 -0700
Message-ID: <20110728084106.22166324@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net>
References: <BANLkTi=jnxBu6WzAOTxHD+e_O1qYKE2m=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEJpZP1cr4B9qX6gH9O4iXwWvEdxs2aebL21FnX1BE0dJPHrEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110711082755.0b38a15a@nehalam.ftrdhcpuser.net>
	<20110712113643.GC616804@jupiter.n2.diac24.net>
	<CAEJpZP1Da=G3--jThbaj5H4+H+836quXXEfGXtBwdPewr-Pjrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110715160357.GC1407585@jupiter.n2.diac24.net>
	<20110715163345.GD1407585@jupiter.n2.diac24.net>
	<20110727111714.GA2027462@jupiter.n2.diac24.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Nick Carter <ncarter100@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	=?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <mirqus@gmail.com>,
	davem@davemloft.net
To: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:41594 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753951Ab1G1PmX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:42:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20110727111714.GA2027462@jupiter.n2.diac24.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:17:15 +0200
David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:33:45PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:03:57PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 04:44:50PM +0100, Nick Carter wrote:
> > > > On 12 July 2011 12:36, David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 08:27:55AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > >> I am still undecided on this. Understand the need, but don't like idea
> > > > >> of bridge behaving in non-conforming manner. Will see if IEEE 802 committee
> > > > >> has any input.
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch doesn't make the bridge behave nonconformant. The default mask
> > > > > is 0, which just keeps the old behaviour.
> > 
> > P.S.: I'd like to once more stress this. In my opinion the patch should
> > be merged because it provides desireable functionality at a small cost
> > (one test, one knob) and __does not change any default behaviour__.
> 
> Stephen, anything new on this?

No.
Don't like adding yet another hack user visible API which will have
to be maintained for too long. But on the other hand I don't have
a better solution at my finger tips. If better idea doesn't come
along, then we can go with yours.