From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/5] IGMP snooping for local traffic Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 21:21:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20171109202156.GL13277@lunn.ch> References: <87mv3y7y52.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20171107210142.GA21784@lunn.ch> <112f2916-d2de-06c0-87b9-a6c49967bcdf@gmail.com> <20171107221710.GE21784@lunn.ch> <87lgjhhg0j.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20171107231700.GD7601@lunn.ch> <16bdbcfe-d2b3-5e66-f7b8-12020b732625@gmail.com> <20171109193011.GJ13277@lunn.ch> <1067aa67-1a49-643f-85d2-e3d8a34a6db1@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Vivien Didelot , David Miller , netdev To: Florian Fainelli Return-path: Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:51179 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751348AbdKIUWC (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:22:02 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1067aa67-1a49-643f-85d2-e3d8a34a6db1@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:38:26AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 11/09/2017 11:30 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> This means that switchdev drivers won't ever have to treat a HOST_MDB > >> notification any differently than a PORT_MDB notification > > > > No, they need to treat it very differently. > > Allow me to rephrase, switchdev drivers will ignore HOST_MDB > notifications because that does not resolve to something they can do > something about. Hi Florian Yes, they can. In fact, if they want to support IGMP snooping on the bridge interface, they have to. How else do they know to forward traffic to the host? > Fine, then add a boolean to the PORT_MDB notification that says ingress > or egress and voila, or am I missing something? But since the semantics are so different, why not just have a different messages? Andrew