On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:59:11 +0200 Vitalii Demianets <vitas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, Stephen! > I can not understand your silence. > There are issues fixed by the patch in question. For example, if the interface > is left in blocking state after stp was turned off, that state is not > stable - it can flip to forwarding state in unpredictable times, e.g. when > _any other_ slave of the bridge goes up or down. Do you think user wants > exactly that unpredictable state change? > Also, the code in question in function br_stp_stop(), namely > br_port_state_selection(br) call, does exactly nothing except wasting cpu > cycles. Isn't it worth fixing? > I had to go do real work last week. Let me test and look at it more detail. There is no urgency, the problem has existed for many years. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
