From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] bridge: Allow an ability to designate an uplink port Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:54:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20130313155450.61886850@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1363139126-13396-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <1363139126-13396-3-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <20130313203333.GC9821@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Vlad Yasevich , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com ([209.85.160.50]:56643 "EHLO mail-pb0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934317Ab3CMWy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:54:56 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id up1so1467139pbc.23 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:54:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130313203333.GC9821@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:33:33 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:45:24PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > Allow a ports to be designated as uplink. Multiple ports > > may be designated as uplinks and they will be kept in a > > list. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich > > It looks like if you make two links uplink, bridging > between them won't work at all? Maybe better to mark which ports are terminal ports rather than marking uplink ports?