Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:37:54 +0200 | From | netdev@kapio-te ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers |
| |
On 2022-08-23 09:24, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:13:54AM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com > wrote: >> On 2022-08-23 08:48, Ido Schimmel wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:49:28AM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com >> > wrote: >> >> > > As I am not familiar with roaming in this context, I need to know >> > > how the SW >> > > bridge should behave in this case. >> > >> >> > > In this case, is the roaming only between locked ports or does the >> > > roaming include that the entry can move to a unlocked port, resulting >> > > in the locked flag getting removed? >> > >> > Any two ports. If the "locked" entry in mv88e6xxx cannot move once >> > installed, then the "sticky" flag accurately describes it. >> > >> >> But since I am also doing the SW bridge implementation without >> mv88e6xxx I >> need it to function according to needs. >> Thus the locked entries created in the bridge I shall not put the >> sticky >> flag on, but there will be the situation where a locked entry can move >> to an >> unlocked port, which we regarded as a bug. > > I do not regard this as a bug. It makes sense to me that an authorized > port can cause an entry pointing to an unauthorized port to roam to > itself. Just like normal learned entries. What I considered as a bug is > the fact that the "locked" flag is not cleared when roaming to an > authorized port. > >> In that case there is two possibilities, the locked entry can move to >> an unlocked port with the locked flag being removed or the locked >> entry can only move to another locked port? > > My suggestion is to allow roaming and maintain / clear the "locked" > flag > based on whether the new destination port is locked or not.
Thus I understand it as saying that the "locked" flag can also be set when roaming from an unlocked port to a locked port?
| |