On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 16:09, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 02:59:04PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 15:43, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 09:45:26PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: >> >> So the solution would be to not let the DSA layer send the >> >> SWITCHDEV_FDB_OFFLOADED event in the case when the new dynamic flag is >> >> set? >> > >> > I have never said that. >> >> No, I was just thinking of a solution based on your previous comment >> that dynamic fdb entries with the offloaded flag set should not be aged >> out by the bridge as they are now. > > If you were a user of those other drivers, and you ran the command: > "bridge fdb add ... master dynamic" > would you be ok with the behavior: "I don't have dynamic FDB entries, > but here's a static one for you"? I don't know if you have a solution in mind wrt the behaviour of the offloaded flag if it is not to do as it does now and let the bridge age out dynamic entries. That led me to conclude that this patch-set cannot use the offloaded flag, but you seem to suggest otherwise. If you have a suggestion, feel free.
