On 2023-01-19 14:40, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:33:58AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:14:00PM +0100, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
> > > + item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
> >
> > Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any
> > further interpretations up to the consumer?
>
> My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries,
> thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a switchdev_notifier_fdb_info
> struct the common case does not need to be entered.
> Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct and if
> it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they will get
> dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find such an error.
I'll leave it up to bridge maintainers if this is preferable to
patching
all callers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE such that they set
is_static=true.
Actually, why would you assume that all users of
SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE
want to add static FDB entries? You can't avoid inspecting the code and
making sure that the is_dyn/is_static flag is set correctly either way.
Well, up until this patch set there is no option, besides entries from
SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE events will get the external learned flag
set, so they will not be aged by the bridge, and so dynamic entries that
way don't make much sense I think. Is that not right?
