On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 19:00, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > A reasonable question you could ask yourself is: why do my BR_FDB_OFFLOADED > entries have this flag in the software bridge in the first place? > Did I add code for it? Is it because there is some difference between > mv88e6xxx and ocelot/felix, or is it because dsa_fdb_offload_notify() > gets called in both cases from generic code just the same? > > And if dsa_fdb_offload_notify() gets called in both cases just the same, > but no other driver except for mv88e6xxx emits the SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE > which you've patched the bridge to expect in this series, then what exactly > is surprising in the fact that offloaded and dynamic FDB entries now become > stale, but are not removed from the software bridge as they were before? Yes, I see I have missed that the dsa layer already adds the offloaded flag in dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work() in slave.c. My first approach was to use the SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE event and not the SWITCHDEV_FDB_OFFLOADED event as the first would set the external learned flag which is not aged out by the bridge. I have at some point earlier asked why there would be two quite equivalent flags and what the difference between them are, but I didn't get a response. Now I see the difference and that I cannot use the offloaded flag without changing the behaviour of the system as I actually change the behaviour of the offloaded flag in this version of the patch-set. So if the idea of a 'synthetically' learned fdb entry from the driver using the SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE event from the driver towards the bridge instead is accepted, I can go with that? (thus removing all the changes in the patch-set regarding the offloaded flag ofcourse)
