> +/* For the moment, only flood setting needs to be updated */
> +static int port_bridge_join(struct net_device *netdev,
> + struct net_device *upper_dev)
> +{
> + struct ethsw_port_priv *port_priv = netdev_priv(netdev);
> + struct ethsw_core *ethsw = port_priv->ethsw_data;
> + int i, err;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ethsw->sw_attr.num_ifs; i++)
> + if (ethsw->ports[i]->bridge_dev &&
> + (ethsw->ports[i]->bridge_dev != upper_dev)) {
> + netdev_err(netdev,
> + "Another switch port is connected to %s\n",
> + ethsw->ports[i]->bridge_dev->name);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Enable flooding */
> + err = ethsw_port_set_flood(port_priv, 1);
> + if (!err)
> + port_priv->bridge_dev = upper_dev;
> +
> + return err;
> +}
Hi Razvan
That is not what i was meaning.
brctl addbr br0
brctl addbr br1
brctl addif br0 lan0
brctl addif br0 lan1
brctl addif br1 lan2
brctl addif br1 lan3
Is there somewhere in the code which sets the scope for the flooding?
lan0 can flood to lan1, but it should not flood to lan2 or lan3, since
they are in a different bridge. I was expecting that
ethsw_port_set_flood() takes upper_dev, in order to configure which
ports it should flood to.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
