Hi Ido, On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:32:10AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 10:23:07AM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > Right. I'm quite reluctant to add the MAB flag to > > BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD as part of this patchset for the simple reason > > that it is not really needed. I'm not worried about someone adding it > > later when it is actually needed. We will probably catch the omission > > during code review. Worst case, we have a selftest that will break, > > notifying us that a bug fix is needed. > > For drivers which don't emit SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE but do offload > BR_PORT_LOCKED (like mv88e6xxx), things will not work correctly on day 1 > of BR_PORT_MAB because they are not told MAB is enabled, so they have no > way of rejecting it until things work properly with the offload in place. > > It's the same reason for which we have BR_HAIRPIN_MODE | BR_ISOLATED | > BR_MULTICAST_TO_UNICAST in BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD, even if nobody acts > upon them. Do you have any comment on this? You resent the BR_PORT_MAB patches without even an ack that yes, mv88e6xxx will not support MAB being enabled on a bridge port, and will not reject the configuration either, and that's ok/intended. Do you think this is not true? Irrelevant? The "fix" (to implement offloading) might come in this development cycle, or it might not.
