From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roopa Prabhu Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RESEND] net: Do not call ndo_dflt_fdb_dump if ndo_fdb_dump is defined. Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:32:46 -0800 Message-ID: <5489D53E.5010603@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <54894850.5000603@cumulusnetworks.com> <7968540cd0768a770b0c8b29ce41a162.squirrel@poczta.wsisiz.edu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim To: Hubert Sokolowski Return-path: Received: from ext3.cumulusnetworks.com ([198.211.106.187]:54377 "EHLO ext3.cumulusnetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932581AbaLKRct (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:32:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7968540cd0768a770b0c8b29ce41a162.squirrel@poczta.wsisiz.edu.pl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/11/14, 9:06 AM, Hubert Sokolowski wrote: > My apologies for sending again, I forgot to include a sample output you asked. > >> Also, if i hear your concern correctly, for bridge ports that implement >> ndo_fdb_dump, with commit 5e6d243587990a588143b9da3974833649595587, we >> will get two entries for each 'self' entry above. >> Can you also paste sample output for that ?. >> > [root@silpixa00378825 ~]# bridge fdb show brport mac0 > 33:33:00:00:00:01 self permanent > 33:33:00:00:00:01 self permanent > > Thanks. yes, that is a problem. And, this mac0 is not a bridge port correct ?. But, for the same test case, when mac0 is a bridge port, does your patch under review make both the entries go away for a bridge port ?. (If i understand jamal correctly, this is his concern).