On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 18:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Toshiaki Makita > <makita.toshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (2014/03/19 9:50), Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Toshiaki Makita > >> <makita.toshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> nit, > >>> If the last detached port happens to have the same addr as > >>> random_init_addr, this seems to call br_stp_change_bridge_id() even > >>> though bridge_id is not changed. > >> > >> Ah good point. > >> > >>> Shouldn't the assignment of random_init_addr be done before the check of > >>> "no change"? > >> > >> Good question, should we even allow two ports to have the same MAC > >> address or should we complain and refuse to add it? If so that should > >> mean we should also have to monitor any manual address changes or > >> events for address changes on the ports. > > > > This was recently discussed by Stephen and me. > > I'm thinking it should be allowed. > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=139182743919257&w=2 > > Great now that that's sorted out though I still think calling > br_stp_change_bridge_id() is right just as calling the update features > as the device is different. It could however be confusing when this > situation is run and folks might report odd bugs unless we could tell > them apart clearly. Thoughts? br_stp_change_bridge_id() is currently called only if bridge_id.addr should be changed. If the addr should not be changed but some updates are needed, br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() doesn't seem to fit into it. Toshiaki Makita
