From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toshiaki Makita Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bridge: preserve random init MAC address Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:04:37 +0900 Message-ID: <5328ED25.1040900@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <1394680527-28970-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1394680527-28970-2-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <5328E802.3030901@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Hemminger , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org (2014/03/19 9:50), Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Toshiaki Makita > wrote: >> nit, >> If the last detached port happens to have the same addr as >> random_init_addr, this seems to call br_stp_change_bridge_id() even >> though bridge_id is not changed. > > Ah good point. > >> Shouldn't the assignment of random_init_addr be done before the check of >> "no change"? > > Good question, should we even allow two ports to have the same MAC > address or should we complain and refuse to add it? If so that should > mean we should also have to monitor any manual address changes or > events for address changes on the ports. This was recently discussed by Stephen and me. I'm thinking it should be allowed. http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=139182743919257&w=2 Toshiaki Makita > > Stephen? > > Luis