Re: [Patch v2 net-next 3/3] net: bridge: mcast: Notify on mdb offload failure

[Joseph Huang]

On 4/4/2025 4:04 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 4/4/25 18:25, Joseph Huang wrote:
> > On 4/4/2025 6:29 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > > On 4/4/25 02:44, Joseph Huang wrote:
> > > > Notify user space on mdb offload failure if mdb_offload_fail_notification
> > > > is set.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joseph Huang <Joseph.Huang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    net/bridge/br_mdb.c       | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > >    net/bridge/br_private.h   |  9 +++++++++
> > > >    net/bridge/br_switchdev.c |  4 ++++
> > > >    3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > The patch looks good, but one question - it seems we'll mark mdb entries with
> > > "offload failed" when we get -EOPNOTSUPP as an error as well. Is that intended?
> > >
> > > That is, if the option is enabled and we have mixed bridge ports, we'll mark mdbs
> > > to the non-switch ports as offload failed, but it is not due to a switch offload
> > > error.
> >
> > Good catch. No, that was not intended.
> >
> > What if we short-circuit and just return like you'd suggested initially if err == -EOPNOTSUPP?
> >
> > > > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
> > > > index 40f0b16e4df8..9b5005d0742a 100644
> > > > --- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
> > > > +++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
> > > > @@ -504,6 +504,7 @@ static void br_switchdev_mdb_complete(struct net_device *dev, int err, void *pri
> > > >        struct net_bridge_mdb_entry *mp;
> > > >        struct net_bridge_port *port = data->port;
> > > >        struct net_bridge *br = port->br;
> > > > +    u8 old_flags;
> > > >    
> >
> > +    if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > +        goto notsupp;
> >
> > > >        spin_lock_bh(&br->multicast_lock);
> > > >        mp = br_mdb_ip_get(br, &data->ip);
> > > > @@ -514,7 +515,10 @@ static void br_switchdev_mdb_complete(struct net_device *dev, int err, void *pri
> > > >            if (p->key.port != port)
> > > >                continue;
> > > >    +        old_flags = p->flags;
> > > >            br_multicast_set_pg_offload_flags(p, !err);
> > > > +        if (br_mdb_should_notify(br, old_flags ^ p->flags))
> > > > +            br_mdb_flag_change_notify(br->dev, mp, p);
> > > >        }
> > > >    out:
> > > >        spin_unlock_bh(&br->multicast_lock);
> >
> > + notsupp:
> >      kfree(priv);
>
> Looks good to me. Thanks!

Thanks for the review!

And a logistic question. Now that part 1 and part 2 are ack'd (thanks 
again for the review), when I send out v3, should I resend those 
(unmodified part 1 and part 2) with my v3 patch series, or should I 
break this one off and only send part 3 v3 as a separate patch?

Thanks,
Joseph