EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safeAhh, did not see this mail before responsing to the other one.
On 26/01/2020 15:28, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
The 01/25/2020 20:16, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
On 25.01.2020 16:20, Andrew Lunn wrote:I would look over this.
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safeI agree.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:37:26PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
The 01/24/2020 18:43, Andrew Lunn wrote:
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
br_mrp_flush - will flush the FDB.
How does this differ from a normal bridge flush? I assume there is a
way for user space to flush the bridge FDB.
If I seen corectly the normal bridge flush will clear the entire FDB for
all the ports of the bridge. In this case it is require to clear FDB
entries only for the ring ports.
Maybe it would be better to extend the current bridge netlink call to
be able to pass an optional interface to be flushed? I'm not sure it
is a good idea to have two APIs doing very similar things.
There's already a way to flush FDBs per-port - IFLA_BRPORT_FLUSH.
We could do also that. The main reason why I have added a new generic
And when looking at this again, I start to think that we should have
extended the existing netlink interface with new commands, instead of
adding a generic netlink.
netlink was that I thought it would be clearer what commands are for MRP
configuration. But if you think that we should go forward by extending
existing netlink interface, that is perfectly fine for me.
I don't mind extending the current netlink interface but the bridge already has
a huge (the largest) set of options and each time we add a new option we have
to adjust RTNL_MAX_TYPE. If you do decide to go this way maybe look into nesting
all the MRP options under one master MRP element into the bridge options, example: