On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:20:36PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > The 01/18/2021 19:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:56:18PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > > > The reason was to stay away from STP, because you can't run these two > > > protocols at the same time. Even though in SW, we reuse port's state. > > > In our driver(which is not upstreamed), we currently implement > > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE and just call the > > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_STP_STATE. > > > > And isn't Rasmus's approach reasonable, in that it allows unmodified > > switchdev drivers to offload MRP port states without creating > > unnecessary code churn? > > I am sorry but I don't see this as the correct solution. In my opinion, > I would prefer to have 3 extra lines in the driver and have a better > view of what is happening. Than having 2 calls in the driver for > different protocols. I think the question boils down to: is a MRP-unaware driver expected to work with the current bridge MRP code? > If it is not a problem to have STP calls when you configure the MRP, > then why not just remove SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE? Good question, why not?
