From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: push blocking slaves to forwarding when turning stp off Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:11:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20111220101117.2a3eb12f@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <201112131136.25919.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> <20111213161613.0c59ab36@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <201112141132.51867.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> <201112201259.12086.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, Michael Tremer To: Vitalii Demianets Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:51713 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751772Ab1LTSLU (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:11:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <201112201259.12086.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:59:11 +0200 Vitalii Demianets wrote: > Hello, Stephen! > I can not understand your silence. > There are issues fixed by the patch in question. For example, if the interface > is left in blocking state after stp was turned off, that state is not > stable - it can flip to forwarding state in unpredictable times, e.g. when > _any other_ slave of the bridge goes up or down. Do you think user wants > exactly that unpredictable state change? > Also, the code in question in function br_stp_stop(), namely > br_port_state_selection(br) call, does exactly nothing except wasting cpu > cycles. Isn't it worth fixing? > I had to go do real work last week. Let me test and look at it more detail. There is no urgency, the problem has existed for many years.