Le Wed, 4 May 2022 19:24:57 +0300,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 11:29:56AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> > +static int a5psw_port_fdb_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > + const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
> > + struct dsa_db db)
> > +{
> > + struct a5psw *a5psw = ds->priv;
> > + union lk_data lk_data = {0};
> > + bool clear = false;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > + u16 entry;
> > + u32 reg;
> > +
> > + ether_addr_copy(lk_data.entry.mac, addr);
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&a5psw->lk_lock);
> > +
> > + ret = a5psw_lk_execute_lookup(a5psw, &lk_data, &entry);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(a5psw->dev, "Failed to lookup mac address\n");
> > + goto lk_unlock;
> > + }
> > +
> > + lk_data.hi = a5psw_reg_readl(a5psw, A5PSW_LK_DATA_HI);
> > + if (!lk_data.entry.valid) {
> > + dev_err(a5psw->dev, "Tried to remove non-existing entry\n");
> > + ret = -ENOENT;
> > + goto lk_unlock;
>
> These error messages can happen under quite normal use with your hardware.
> For example:
>
> ip link add br0 type bridge && ip link set br0 master br0
> bridge fdb add dev swp0 00:01:02:03:04:05 vid 1 master static
> bridge fdb add dev swp0 00:01:02:03:04:05 vid 2 master static
> bridge fdb del dev swp0 00:01:02:03:04:05 vid 2 master static
> bridge fdb del dev swp0 00:01:02:03:04:05 vid 1 master static
>
> Because the driver ignores the VID, then as soon as the VID 2 FDB entry
> is removed, the VID 1 FDB entry doesn't exist anymore, either.
Argh did not thought about that but indeed, that will for sure trigger
the error.
>
> The above is a bit artificial. More practically, the bridge installs
> local FDB entries (MAC address of bridge device, MAC addresses of ports)
> once in the VLAN-unaware database (VID 0), and once per VLAN installed
> on br0.
Ok, seems clear.
>
> When the MAC address of br0 is different from that of the ports, and it
> is changed by the user, you'll get these errors too, since those changes
> translate into a deletion of the old local FDB entries (installed as FDB
> entries towards the CPU port). Do you want the users to see them and
> think something is wrong? I mean, something _is_ wrong (the hardware),
> but you have to work with that somehow.
Indeed, I'll simply remove these error message. Should I still return
an error value however ? Seems like I should not to avoid triggering
any error that might confuse the user.
--
Clément Léger,
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin
https://bootlin.com
