From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikolay Aleksandrov Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bridge: a netlink notification should be sent when those attributes are changed by br_sysfs_if Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:49:11 +0100 Message-ID: <56E97267.2010800@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <059d608901fd86407fed374e567c46447aa8c88f.1458134414.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <45f430c026ce8a2fb358c650a41452aebff9ec36.1458134414.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <38a10eecc6347a3c47b55c86b4783c49b6dbbc99.1458134414.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <7c788b65786582209a3ba4bc4d4ed279f6f77568.1458134414.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <56E96C4C.8060407@cumulusnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: network dev , davem , Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Xin Long Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:37267 "EHLO mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933471AbcCPOt1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:49:27 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p65so76112834wmp.0 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/16/2016 03:45 PM, Xin Long wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov > wrote: >> On 03/16/2016 02:34 PM, Xin Long wrote: >>> Now when we change the attributes of bridge or br_port by netlink, >>> a relevant netlink notification will be sent, but if we change them >>> by ioctl or sysfs, no notification will be sent. >>> >>> We should ensure that whenever those attributes change internally or from >>> sysfs/ioctl, that a netlink notification is sent out to listeners. >>> >>> Also, NetworkManager will use this in the future to listen for out-of-band >>> bridge master attribute updates and incorporate them into the runtime >>> configuration. >>> >>> This patch is used for br_sysfs_if, and we also move br_ifinfo_notify out >>> of store_flag. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Xin Long >>> --- >>> net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c | 5 +++-- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >> >> Generally looks good, but it creates an inconsistency between bridge fdb_flush >> and port fdb_flush since the latter will generate a notification while the >> bridge flush will not. >> > yeah, because port fdb_flush is called by brport_store(), in the > common function. Right. > do you think it''s redundant if we add a notification in bridge > fdb_flush to keep > consistence with port fdb_flush? > Hmm, technically we're doing this via a sysfs option and the netlink fdb flush one will generate a notification, so I'd say let's make them all consistent and make them all generate a notification, and also making the bridge fdb_flush use the bridge_store_parm should be trivial. Thanks, Nik