Re: [net-next PATCH v1 7/7] macvlan: add FDB bridge ops and new macvlan mode

[John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>]

On 4/10/2012 5:46 PM, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 8:35 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 4/10/2012 8:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:26:21AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2012 7:35 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:25:58AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>>> Hmm okay, but this would mean we should convert
>>>>>>> MACVLAN_MODE_PASSTHRU_NOPROMISC to something
>>>>>>> that can combined with all modes. E.g.
>>>>>>> MACVLAN_MODE_BRIDGE | MACVLAN_MODE_FLAG_XXXXX
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and document that it does not promise to flood
>>>>>>> multicast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about changing MACVLAN_MODE_PASSTHRU_NOPROMISC ->  MACVLAN_MODE_NOPORMISC
>>>>>> for this patch. Then a follow on series can rework bridge
>>>>>> and VEPA to use it as well.
>>>>> Right. We probably need a better name if it's going to
>>>>> affect other things besides promisc though.
>>>>>
>>>> how about MACVLAN_MODE_FDBFLAG?
>>> The idea being that no one figures out what this means so
>>> no one will make any wrong assumptions? ;)
>>>
>> Well its a flag to enable the FDB (forwarding database) ops
>> and skip dev_set_promisc() on passthru mode. Any better ideas?
>> Maybe MACVLAN_MODE_FDBENABLE or MACVLAN_MODE_MANAGE_FDB?
> Do we need to introduce another mode? I think this patch is enabling passthru mode without the need
> to put the underlying device in promiscuous mode. So basically we can consider this patch as
> an optimization.
> 
> Thanks
> Sridhar
> 

Sridhar, Michael,

After thinking about this a bit I would propose keeping this
patch as is. Or if we prefer I can make this a flag but I don't
think that helps much. passthru mode is the only macvlan mode
that calls dev_set_promiscuity(). Either way I think this mode
or flag should _only_ toggle the call to dev_set_promiscuity().

Setting multicast dev->flag IFF_ALLMULTI seems to be a completely
separate optimization that we can work with a follow up patch.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for the feedback,
John