From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] rocker: check for BRIDGE_FLAGS_SELF in bridge setlink handler Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:00:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20150317070046.GB2042@nanopsycho.orion> References: <20150309064043.GB2053@nanopsycho.orion> <20150309160754.GA2169@nanopsycho.lan> <20150310063926.GA1995@nanopsycho.orion> <20150310082817.GC1995@nanopsycho.orion> <550752BA.5040702@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Arad, Ronen" , Netdev , Roopa Prabhu , Scott Feldman , "David S. Miller" To: John Fastabend Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]:34176 "EHLO mail-we0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751144AbbCQHAt (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:00:49 -0400 Received: by wegp1 with SMTP id p1so675627weg.1 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <550752BA.5040702@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:01:30PM CET, john.fastabend@gmail.com wrote: >[...] > >> >>>If this position is accepted, it would be best to enforce it, possibly in >>>rtnl_bridge_setlink(). >>>My recollection is that others asked to preserve use-cases where SELF flag >>>is used for targeting port devices directly without using a bridge device. >> >>I know it is possible, and it is incorrect and hacky. But it is part of >>user api :/ I think we should not abuse this more in the future and >>rather make the api correct and use that. >> > >Working my way through my backlog of email sorry for the days delay. > >Jiri, are you suggesting it is incorrect to configure the hardware L2 >independent of bridge device? There is absolutely use cases for this. > >The case being we want the hardware to do L2 learning via fdb and then >when flows get 'trapped' into software we want to handle them >differently. Possibly send them onto a specific application for logging. Yes, but that can be done in transparent way, exposing hw ports, having them in bridge/ovs/whatever. Same as we do with rocker. > >I'm at a loss around what use "really" running the bridge in software >is. There shouldn't be packets traversing the software path and if they >are being sent onto software I really can't think of any use case I >would want to run them through the software bridge. More likely I want >to run OVS or some equivalent controller-based software to forward them >"specially" to the correct software/controller/port. > >My current use case is L2/L3 on the hardware, OVS and applications in >software. I don't think this is broken or hacky. This means no bridge >in software but programming the L2 bridge in hardware. > >.John > > >-- >John Fastabend Intel Corporation