From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FAFC5B57D for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 01:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2B120673 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 01:43:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="cz3FRZpI" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727204AbfGCBn0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 21:43:26 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:49726 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726329AbfGCBnZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 21:43:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=r02h9MTl0BX08PCqISfFd+97NJJEJLJZHaEFTSLVzmQ=; b=cz3FRZpIXEdBacZ9X8yxYsqKdd 3TwMjwPk+OiCunEKlvtvOfTpo6KkvmAV9eMTXyWqDvXf0no9JJEeu7mj5DmuY5uiquynQG+OGpTBH 9uutB4Lht+UCDAUOwmbgVhpE6NQzm4En/OSanGKvCRVKwVgA87AOB4HRR/zYvQNtgiCk=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hiPg9-0000GT-HO; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 22:47:05 +0200 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:47:05 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Nikolay Aleksandrov Cc: Roopa Prabhu , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev Subject: Validation of forward_delay seems wrong... Message-ID: <20190702204705.GC28471@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hi Nikolay The man page says that the bridge forward_delay is in units of seconds, and should be between 2 and 30. I've tested on a couple of different kernel versions, and this appears to be not working correctly: ip link set br0 type bridge forward_delay 2 RTNETLINK answers: Numerical result out of range ip link set br0 type bridge forward_delay 199 RTNETLINK answers: Numerical result out of range ip link set br0 type bridge forward_delay 200 # ip link set br0 type bridge forward_delay 3000 # ip link set br0 type bridge forward_delay 3001 RTNETLINK answers: Numerical result out of range I've not checked what delay is actually being used here, but clearly something is mixed up. grep HZ .config CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC=y # CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE is not set # CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not set # CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set CONFIG_HZ_FIXED=0 CONFIG_HZ_100=y # CONFIG_HZ_200 is not set # CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set # CONFIG_HZ_500 is not set # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set CONFIG_HZ=100 Thanks Andrew