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.
