Re: [net-next,rfc] net: bridge: mdb: Extend with multicast LLADDR

[Nikolay Aleksandrov]

On 01/08/2019 17:11, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 01/08/2019 17:07, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> Hi Horatiu,
>> Overall I think MDB is the right way, we'd like to contain the multicast code.
>> A few comments below.
>>
>> On 01/08/2019 15:50, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Co-developed-by: Allan W. Nielsen <allan.nielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Allan W. Nielsen <allan.nielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/if_bridge.h      |  1 +
>>>  include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h |  1 +
>>>  net/bridge/br_device.c         |  7 +++++--
>>>  net/bridge/br_forward.c        |  3 ++-
>>>  net/bridge/br_input.c          | 13 ++++++++++--
>>>  net/bridge/br_mdb.c            | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>  net/bridge/br_multicast.c      |  4 +++-
>>>  net/bridge/br_private.h        |  3 ++-
>>>  8 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Overall I don't think we need this BR_PKT_MULTICAST_L2, we could do the below much
>> easier and without the checks if you use a per-mdb flag that says it's to be treated
>> as a MULTICAST_L2 entry. Then you remove all of the BR_PKT_MULTICAST_L2 code (see the
>> attached patch based on this one for example). and continue processing it as it is processed today.
>> We'll keep the fast-path with minimal number of new conditionals.
>>
>> Something like the patch I've attached to this reply, note that it is not complete
>> just to show the intent, you'll have to re-work br_mdb_notify() to make it proper
>> and there're most probably other details I've missed. If you find even better/less
>> complex way to do it then please do.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Nik
> 
> Oops, I sent back your original patch. Here's the actually changed version
> I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks,
>  Nik
> 
> 
> 

The querier exists change is a hack just to get the point, I'd prefer
to re-write that portion in a better way which makes more sense, i.e.
get that check out of there since it doesn't mean that an actual querier
exists. :)