On 01/05/18 20:04, Petr Machata wrote:
Do not automatically bail out on sending notifications about activity on non-user-added FDB entries. Instead, notify about this activity except for cases where the activity itself originates in a notification, to avoid sending duplicate notifications. Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- net/bridge/br.c | 4 ++-- net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- net/bridge/br_private.h | 4 ++-- net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 2 +- 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Hi Petr, We already have 7 different fdb delete functions, I'm really not a fan of adding yet another one for such trivial change. Why don't you just add the new notify parameter to the already existing fdb_delete() ? (actually about the name see below) IMO it's confusing - if one wants a notification then use fdb_delete() or __fdb_delete(true) vs __fdb_delete(false) if a notification is not required. I think simply having the last parameter everywhere for fdb_delete() shows the intention clearer and avoids another fdb delete function. Another point, the notify parameter has a confusing name in this context because you're controlling the switchdev notifications not the rtnetlink ones. I'd suggest changing the name to something more descriptive like swdev_notify, otherwise you could get the funny end result of calling __fdb_notify() with notify == false which to me means don't notify. :-) Also please add the bridge maintainers to the CC list. Thanks, Nik
