On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Vivien Didelot
<vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
> On 15-08-05 23:28:15, Scott Feldman wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Vivien Didelot
>> <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
>> > This patch adds a is_static boolean to the switchdev_obj_fdb structure,
>> > in order to set the ndm_state to either NUD_NOARP or NUD_REACHABLE.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com>
>> > ---
>> > include/net/switchdev.h | 1 +
>> > net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 2 +-
>> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
>> > index e90e1a0..0e296b8 100644
>> > --- a/include/net/switchdev.h
>> > +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
>> > @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ struct switchdev_obj {
>> > struct switchdev_obj_fdb { /* PORT_FDB */
>> > u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
>> > u16 vid;
>> > + bool is_static;
>>
>> What do you think about changing this to u16 ndm_state? That way, it
>> can be used on input (fdb add) and output (fdb dump), and the driver
>> can privately track the state, kind of like how the bridge keeps
>> is_static, is_local, etc.
>
> I'm OK with the change. Should we consider NUD_NONE (0) a valid value?
>
>> > } fdb;
>> > } u;
>> > };
>> > diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> > index 9db87a3..e9d1cac 100644
>> > --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> > +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> > @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static int switchdev_port_fdb_dump_cb(struct
>> > net_device *dev,
>> > ndm->ndm_flags = NTF_SELF;
>> > ndm->ndm_type = 0;
>> > ndm->ndm_ifindex = dev->ifindex;
>> > - ndm->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE;
>> > + ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.is_static ? NUD_NOARP :
>> > NUD_REACHABLE;
>
> In other word, do we prefer this:
>
> ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.ndm_state == NUD_NONE ?
> NUD_REACHABLE : obj->u.fdb.ndm_state;
>
> Or this (meaning switchdev users cannot leave it blank and must at least
> set NUD_REACHABLE themselves):
>
> ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.ndm_state;
My preference would be this option.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
