Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:36:26PM CEST, niko...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote: >On 10/10/2015 09:49 AM, Elad Raz wrote: >> >>> On Oct 10, 2015, at 2:30 AM, Vivien Didelot >>> <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote: >>> >>> I have two concerns in mind: >>> >>> a) if we imagine that drivers like Rocker allocate memory in the prepare >>> phase for each VID, preparing a range like 100-4000 would definitely not >>> be recommended. >>> >>> b) imagine that you have two Linux bridges on a switch, one using the >>> hardware VLAN 100. If you request the VLAN range 99-101 for the other >>> bridge members, it is not possible for the driver to say "I can >>> accelerate VLAN 99 and 101, but not 100". It must return OPNOTSUPP for >>> the whole range. >> >> Another concern I have with vid_being..vid_end range is the “flags”. Where >> flags can be BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID. >> There is no sense having more than one VLAN as a PVID. >> This leave the HW vendor the choice which VLAN id they will use as the PVID. >> > >iproute2 doesn't allow to do it but I can see that someone can actually make it >so the flags for the range have it and it doesn't look correct. Perhaps we need >something like the patch below to enforce this from kernel-side. > > >diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c >index d78b4429505a..02b17b53e9a6 100644 >--- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c >+++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c >@@ -524,6 +524,9 @@ static int br_afspec(struct net_bridge *br, > if (vinfo_start) > return -EINVAL; > vinfo_start = vinfo; >+ /* don't allow range of pvids */ >+ if (vinfo_start->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID) >+ return -EINVAL; > continue; > } >
Looks correct to me. Could you please submit this properly? Thanks! -- 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
