Le Thu, 30 Mar 2023 19:51:23 +0300, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > 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'. Agreed. > > 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. Forced forwarded to disabled ports will only apply to management frames. At least this is what the documentation says for forced forwarding (section 4.5.5.4, Table 4.234): Normal frames will be filtered always (i.e. can never be transmitted to disabled ports). -- Clément Léger, Embedded Linux and Kernel engineer at Bootlin https://bootlin.com
