Hi Vivien
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> index 93abfff..812cb47 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> @@ -2240,6 +2240,15 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_one(struct
> mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
> fdb->ndm_state = NUD_NOARP;
> else
> fdb->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE;
> + } else {
Rather than else, i think it would be safer to do
if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) {
> + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb;
> +
> + if (!is_multicast_ether_addr(addr.mac))
> + continue;
> +
> + mdb = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_MDB(obj);
> + mdb->vid = vid;
> + ether_addr_copy(mdb->addr, addr.mac);
> }
It should not happen, but the day it does, we get very confused...
> +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_dump(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> + struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb,
> + int (*cb)(struct switchdev_obj *obj))
> +{
> + struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds_to_priv(ds);
> + int err;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock);
> + err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump(chip, port, &mdb->obj, cb);
> + mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
> +
> + return err;
> +}
Isn't this identical to mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_dump()? Maybe we should
just have one function, and register it twice?
Andrew
