From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E42516D309; Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712322607; cv=none; b=TG0yfOWj5UpDlhuy6eaLbJiQfUinO3rOvWS2R9iWa98OGn9n7xJssucg+w3hQ63KsWKHINOjc47gWE0UwfgKFGQ4TX2v8jvQWvR1krZVKOKEybKvdzajrJPa547yWSb4YrpHagUSb5ebUHd4BHtSuBhSgd1x7+FZLtvn4z9o3uY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712322607; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5P62dgtJCBrTs4Iej822GldmeGtfHwFj6F1jakBcg0M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Fx8mrg+ocT1FbmJd2Qv2eakfBfAa7wW6MdZWL/u2wN3Ow4ucyD7QYsXt5Ud0nKvnjuLPsMsjqZ1HAVznAxzDNrkzj96mu/NRLlo5UBAsEmBRFcQIZL8cYF1MjvuUafmlimFb85KzkPy5HOxFgQXXGUZ6FaMZUksyWVPwoEa8Jfk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=PYVjk4eo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="PYVjk4eo" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=kl6Yrw/d6rxXv43u6n8i8uN5SsjBxSsc1BcC9x0beuM=; b=PYVjk4eoECX6ZMhDjD3ZOj2+4+ QzD1DWiL61A9tcI/a8bveg+8xbSkdBix+9Q3TedvAhNlUbALXKzpLgi7PoF3tSVeHF0tu6a96a2qO KEK9rzx0ykFT/cvzwVFVhNGpT+dRuOF6YLtDHrizgcuILI4MBzB5Ba3IzHwlbjYSLI6U=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rsjKE-00CIwP-0y; Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:09:46 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:09:46 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Joseph Huang Cc: Joseph Huang , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli , Vladimir Oltean , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Roopa Prabhu , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Linus =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=FCssing?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/10] MC Flood disable and snooping Message-ID: <4511d7cc-d7c0-4095-8a37-b2eefffb0ca2@lunn.ch> References: <20240402001137.2980589-1-Joseph.Huang@garmin.com> <4c28d59e-0c4f-462c-8a1c-d4bd72e25115@gmail.com> <630c37d6-b1c6-466b-8d00-fdc84585d5e7@lunn.ch> <2c3cddda-7ac6-4fc2-b1fa-775c048259e1@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bridge@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2c3cddda-7ac6-4fc2-b1fa-775c048259e1@gmail.com> > > Thanks for the explanation. So i think the key part which you said > > above is: > > > > At the same time, the bridge will also forward the packet to every > > mrouter port so that listeners beyond mrouter ports can receive that > > multicast packet as well. > > > > How does the bridge know about the mrouter port? It seems like the > > The bridge learns about the existence of the Querier by the reception of > Queries. The bridge will mark the port which it received Queries from as the > mrouter port. > > > bridge needs to pass that information down to the switch. Is the > > The bridge does pass that information down to switchdev. Patch 5 adds DSA > handling of that event as well. Patches 9 and 10 adds the support in the > mv88e6xxx driver. I've not been looking at the details too much for this patchset. It does however seem that some parts are controversial, and others just seem like a bug fix. Does it make sense to split this into two patchsets? Andrew