Re: [PATCH net-next RESEND] net: Do not call ndo_dflt_fdb_dump if ndo_fdb_dump is defined.

[Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>]

On 12/12/14 08:36, Hubert Sokolowski wrote:
>> On 12/12/14 06:38, Hubert Sokolowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/14, 9:06 AM, Hubert Sokolowski wrote:
>>
>>> Please see how the ndo_dflt_fdb_add and del are called:
>>> 		if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_fdb_add)
>>> 			err = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_fdb_add(ndm, tb, dev, addr,
>>> 							   vid,
>>> 							   nlh->nlmsg_flags);
>>> 		else
>>> 			err = ndo_dflt_fdb_add(ndm, tb, dev, addr, vid,
>>> 					       nlh->nlmsg_flags);
>>>
>>
>> Semantically add and dump are not the same.
>> Add adds a specific entry.
>> Dump not only dumps the fdb table but also the unicast and multicast
>> addresses.
> this is not true for 3.16 and before. Please see:
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/core/rtnetlink.c?v=3.16#L2545
> It lets you fully manage the FDB table by overwriding fdb_add, del and dump
> in the same way.
>
 >
>
>>
>>
>>> As it was suggested by Ronen I can modify the patch so the dflt callback
>>> is always called for bridge devices if this is desirable. Either by calling
>>> it when following expression is true:
>>>       (dev->priv_flags & IFF_BRIDGE_PORT)
>>> or by modifying br_fdb_dump to call ndo_dflt_fdb_dump.
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying the above is going to work? You need to TEST please.
> yes, it works and it is not a rocket science :). we just need to agree
> on the approach to use.
>

I am happy if this solves wont break
any of the use cases Vlad made me test and make sure work.
When i said "test" - I mean run the testcases outlined in the
commit log; if those work i dont see what the issue is.

cheers,
jamal