On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:03:28 -0600 Adam Majer <adamm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:43:03PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Why not set forwarding delay to zero? I don't think you are using STP? > > > > P.s: removing linux-kernel mailing list, since there is no point > > in copying the whole world on this thread. > > I just sent patches where MAINTAINERS file told me to send it. ;) > > No, I'm not relying on STP. I think setting learning->forwarding delay > to 0 could cause problems with STP like loops until the loop is > detected. > > There may be a better spot where to insert the notification that the > bridge is forwarding data, though I'm not exactly certain where. The > patch will cause bridge to issue NETDEV_CHANGE notification for all > topology changes. This may or may not be useful but shouldn't be > harmful (I can't imagine these occur very often?) The IPv6 autoconf > patch will only act on this if it doesn't have IPv6 address configured > manually or via autoconf. > Since this a generic problem, it needs a better solution. Sending NETDEV_CHANGE impacts lots of other pieces, and even user space has similar problems. -- _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
