On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:45:56PM +0100, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2023-01-31 19:54, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> > > @@ -1684,11 +1684,15 @@ static int b53_arl_op(struct b53_device
> > > *dev, int op, int port,
> > >
> > > int b53_fdb_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
> > > - struct dsa_db db)
> > > + u16 fdb_flags, struct dsa_db db)
> > > {
> > > struct b53_device *priv = ds->priv;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > + /* Ignore entries with set flags */
> > > + if (fdb_flags)
> > > + return 0;
> >
> >
> > Would returning -EOPNOTSUPP be more appropriate?
> >
> > ...
>
> I don't think that would be so good, as the command
>
> bridge fdb replace ADDR dev <DEV> master dynamic
>
> is a valid command and should not generate errors. When ignored by the
> driver, it will just install a dynamic FDB entry in the bridge, and the
> bridge will age it.
Sure, I agree that it's not necessarily an error that needs
to propagate to the user.
My assumption, which I now see is likely false, is that drivers
could return -EOPNOTSUPP, to indicate to higher layers that the operation
is not supported. But the higher layers may not propagate that.
But it seems that is not the case here. So I think return 0 is fine
after all. Sorry for the noise.
