From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:32:35 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20140226173235.GA16484@redhat.com> References: <1393427905-6811-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <1393427905-6811-5-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <20140226085826.6d9567df@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140226085826.6d9567df@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 4/7] bridge: Automatically manage port promiscuous mode. List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Vlad Yasevich , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, jhs@mojatatu.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, shemminger@vyatta.com On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:58:26AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:18:22 -0500 > Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > > When there is only 1 flooding port, this port is programmed > > with all the address the bridge accumulated. This allows > > us to place this port into non-promiscuous mode. > > At other times, all ports are set as promiscuous. To help > > track whether the bridge set the mode or not, a new > > flag is introduced. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich > > This mixes the definition of outbound (flooding) and inbound (promiscuous). > Not sure if this is safe in all cases. Logically: inbound on port A == outbound on all ports except A So promisc on A == OR of flood on all ports except A This rule should just be applied to all ports. Makes sense, right? I think this is what this tries to implement, even if the optimization attempt masks the logic somewhat. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] bridge: Automatically manage port promiscuous mode. Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:32:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20140226173235.GA16484@redhat.com> References: <1393427905-6811-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <1393427905-6811-5-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <20140226085826.6d9567df@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Vlad Yasevich , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, jhs@mojatatu.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, shemminger@vyatta.com To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140226085826.6d9567df@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:58:26AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:18:22 -0500 > Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > > When there is only 1 flooding port, this port is programmed > > with all the address the bridge accumulated. This allows > > us to place this port into non-promiscuous mode. > > At other times, all ports are set as promiscuous. To help > > track whether the bridge set the mode or not, a new > > flag is introduced. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich > > This mixes the definition of outbound (flooding) and inbound (promiscuous). > Not sure if this is safe in all cases. Logically: inbound on port A == outbound on all ports except A So promisc on A == OR of flood on all ports except A This rule should just be applied to all ports. Makes sense, right? I think this is what this tries to implement, even if the optimization attempt masks the logic somewhat.