On 01/05/18 20:04, Petr Machata wrote:
Do not automatically bail out on sending notifications about activity on
non-user-added FDB entries. Instead, notify about this activity except
for cases where the activity itself originates in a notification, to
avoid sending duplicate notifications.
Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <pe...@mellanox.com>
---
net/bridge/br.c | 4 ++--
net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
net/bridge/br_private.h | 4 ++--
net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Hi Petr,
We already have 7 different fdb delete functions, I'm really not a fan of
adding yet another one for such trivial change.
Why don't you just add the new notify parameter to the already existing
fdb_delete() ? (actually about the name see below)
IMO it's confusing - if one wants a notification then use fdb_delete() or
__fdb_delete(true)
vs __fdb_delete(false) if a notification is not required. I think simply having
the last
parameter everywhere for fdb_delete() shows the intention clearer and avoids
another
fdb delete function.
Another point, the notify parameter has a confusing name in this context because
you're controlling the switchdev notifications not the rtnetlink ones. I'd
suggest
changing the name to something more descriptive like swdev_notify, otherwise you
could get the funny end result of calling __fdb_notify() with notify == false
which
to me means don't notify. :-)
Also please add the bridge maintainers to the CC list.
Thanks,
Nik
