On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 05:44:27PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote: > Le Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:16:53 +0300, > Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > > Have you considered adding some Fixes: tags and sending to the "net" tree? > > I wasn't sure if due to the refactoring that should go directly to the > net tree but I'll do that. But since they are fixes, that's the way to > go. My common sense says that code quality comes first, and so, the code looks however it needs to look, keeping in mind that it still needs to be a punctual fix for the problem. This doesn't change the fact that it's a fix for an an observable bug, and so, it's a candidate for 'net'. That's just my opinion though, others may disagree. > > To be absolutely clear, when talking about BPDUs, is it applicable > > effectively only to STP protocol frames, or to any management traffic > > sent by tag_rzn1_a5psw.c which has A5PSW_CTRL_DATA_FORCE_FORWARD set? > > The documentation uses BPDUs but this is to be understood as in a > broader sense for "management frames" since it matches all the MAC with > "01-80-c2-00-00-XX". And even so, is it just for frames sent to "01-80-c2-00-00-XX", or for all frames sent with A5PSW_CTRL_DATA_FORCE_FORWARD? Other switch families can inject whatever they want into ports that are in the BLOCKING STP state.
