On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 07:05:10PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:58:44PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > Let us now add the 'is_local' bit to bridge FDB entries, and make all
> > > drivers ignore these entries by their own choice.
> >
> > Hi Vladimir
> >
> > This goes to the question about the missing cover letter. Why should
> > drivers get to ignore them, rather than the core? It feels like there
> > should be another patch in the series, where a driver does not
> > actually ignore them, but does something?
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Bridge fdb entries with the is_local flag are entries which are
> terminated locally and not forwarded. Switchdev drivers might want to be
> notified of these addresses so they can trap them (otherwise, if they
> don't program these entries to hardware, there is no guarantee that they
> will do the right thing with these entries, and they won't be, let's
> say, flooded). Of course, ideally none of the switchdev drivers should
> ignore them, but having access to the is_local bit is the bare minimum
> change that should be done in the bridge layer, before this is even
> possible.
>
> These 2 changes are actually part of a larger group of changes that
> together form the "RX filtering for DSA" series. I haven't had a lot of
> success with that, so I thought a better approach would be to take it
> step by step. DSA will need to be notified of local FDB entries. For
> now, it ignores them like everybody else. This is supposed to be a
> non-functional patch series because I don't want to spam every switchdev
> maintainer with 15+ DSA RX filtering patches.
This is the sort of information which goes into 0/2. It explains the
big picture 'Why' of the change.
Andrew
