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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0394C433EF for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA4961212 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230162AbhJTMMY (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:12:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47510 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229548AbhJTMMY (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:12:24 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44CDFC06161C for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 05:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id q19so2798397pfl.4 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 05:10:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ftphP/rRhj3HAi/sY+WrPVk0b2hRaTcyx6DeAasFrXQ=; b=B0CIzVA8hGKlxBlbLI2TXw1a7ZZ4cI4SHyOME6mYX/zv8h4K7atw3/cZ4aDOymv95H 3X5Vg7NcqP2XVepAF19Wi7bXeCwcTyJNS4yhadeU5Yel9wMMCqgaqG/kbZboDs3juflh OE4H7vqblU4SZteOWMPRSoradW0IED43Y4hJoBd/vB0TF3QdJelCYOyl4TRKsJ2w0Fil H/LEvKfwxRdcV3teg2VNyy6KOYPaPnZ7GwhPlAPYg/UYt7Rc8/5J5YEB0C///25Qz+23 YAtZl6d8tjINLeAZV+twu5jaS3jbnj992LyKB5XZKTG0FSmplO5f+K9RWcH8Gt9V7S0M BhIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=ftphP/rRhj3HAi/sY+WrPVk0b2hRaTcyx6DeAasFrXQ=; b=YLuYya5IXIFyLmeFV0AJmq8/AdzAArshnSjidmy2W4h7v2GmtsyBdSOykMckPI9MJT uwY4w5eQNC343TMgFpFLARJrofDZY37i8YE4EOf6oNYGyEdYvd3WNtraDrr+PplwxJp1 6ezd4fI/ZQIbZ7hrBTW8H6BashYgTYjdcFH+SKA45313IPgga519CBv23ZTKNsqD53JS OHHBRuOeAtLWt+10DEngyKjQgQEzZOXu5guD8n4GpTBdT7sij3YRaThgt3VAqhqIsl7U eWAO4Ny65o+U/hy5TxAvmTu8V1iQ8cFVnnr2PPIBvUz+85iOIlZziwc+lMeIiulNVTFt rJGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ofhPonAAEMUPQN9he+KCSMwlKwla1TkiYztoHKsV5YuLcrsfl us4gK75cth/93P55w60uDlk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwDqkv/QWkMwSTv7clGOxVT91szFLgmv2smVxJYwGLdcgsCHe+9J6TNTh3Id5LSLIBBZl7wNQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:815:b0:44d:2193:f688 with SMTP id m21-20020a056a00081500b0044d2193f688mr5972528pfk.4.1634731809690; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 05:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laptop-X1 ([209.132.188.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rm14sm5842795pjb.4.2021.10.20.05.10.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 05:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:10:04 +0800 From: Hangbin Liu To: Nikolay Aleksandrov Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Nikolay Aleksandrov , roopa@nvidia.com, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net] net: bridge: mcast: QRI must be less than QI Message-ID: References: <20211020023604.695416-1-liuhangbin@gmail.com> <20211020024016.695678-1-liuhangbin@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 06:19:25PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:49:17PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > > Nacked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov > > > > I think we just discussed this a day ago? It is the same problem - > > while we all agree the values should follow the RFC, users have had > > the option to set any values forever (even non-RFC compliant ones). > > This change risks breaking user-space. > > OK, I misunderstood your reply in last mail. I thought you only object to > disabling no meaning values(e.g. set timer to 0, which not is forbid by the > RFC). I don't know you also reject to follow a *MUST* rule defined in the RFC. I know you denied the patch due to user-space compatibility. Forgive me if my last reply sound a little aggressive. Thanks Hangbin