Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards drivers

From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To: Hans Schultz <netdev@kapio-technology.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	"Florian Fainelli" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Kurt Kanzenbach" <kurt@linutronix.de>,
	"Hauke Mehrtens" <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
	"Woojung Huh" <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
	"maintainer:MICROCHIP KSZ SERIES ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER"
	<UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
	"Sean Wang" <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
	"Landen Chao" <Landen.Chao@mediatek.com>,
	"DENG Qingfang" <dqfext@gmail.com>,
	"Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"AngeloGioacchino Del Regno"
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	"Claudiu Manoil" <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
	"Alexandre Belloni" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
	"Clément Léger" <clement.leger@bootlin.com>,
	"Jiri Pirko" <jiri@resnulli.us>,
	"Ivan Vecera" <ivecera@redhat.com>,
	"Roopa Prabhu" <roopa@nvidia.com>,
	"Nikolay Aleksandrov" <razor@blackwall.org>,
	"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>,
	"Christian Marangi" <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
	"Ido Schimmel" <idosch@nvidia.com>,
	"open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	"open list:RENESAS RZ/N1 A5PSW SWITCH DRIVER"
	<linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE"
	<bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards drivers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 01:59:33 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230327225933.plm5raegywbe7g2a@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pm8tooe1.fsf@kapio-technology.com>

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:49:58PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
> My first approach was to use the SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE event
> and not the SWITCHDEV_FDB_OFFLOADED event as the first would set the
> external learned flag which is not aged out by the bridge.

Link to patch? I don't see any SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE call in
either the v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230130173429.3577450-6-netdev@kapio-technology.com/
or the RFC:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230117185714.3058453-6-netdev@kapio-technology.com/
and the change log does not mention it either.

> I have at some point earlier asked why there would be two quite
> equivalent flags and what the difference between them are, but I didn't
> get a response.

Actually, the part which you are now posing as a question (what is the
difference?) was part of the premise of your earlier question (there is
no difference => why do we have both?).
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/d972e76bed896b229d9df4da81ad8eb4@kapio-technology.com/

I believe that no one answered because the question was confused and it
wasn't really clear what you were asking.

> 
> Now I see the difference and that I cannot use the offloaded flag
> without changing the behaviour of the system as I actually change the
> behaviour of the offloaded flag in this version of the patch-set.
> 
> So if the idea of a 'synthetically' learned fdb entry from the driver
> using the SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE event from the driver towards the
> bridge instead is accepted, I can go with that?
> (thus removing all the changes in the patch-set regarding the offloaded
> flag ofcourse)

which idea is that, again?

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel