From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758791AbaCSBEt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:04:49 -0400
Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.148]:40691 "EHLO
	tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1758366AbaCSBEp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:04:45 -0400
Message-ID: <5328ED25.1040900@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:04:37 +0900
From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
CC: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bridge: preserve random init MAC address
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> <CAB=NE6X2eZFLWBN1acf=d75T_K2YM_OK3oaXEPu-hwpUJEmwkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB=NE6X2eZFLWBN1acf=d75T_K2YM_OK3oaXEPu-hwpUJEmwkg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

(2014/03/19 9:50), Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Toshiaki Makita
> <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> 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