On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:33:58AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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. Actually, why would you assume that all users of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE want to add static FDB entries? You can't avoid inspecting the code and making sure that the is_dyn/is_static flag is set correctly either way.
