[Bridge] [RFC net-next v3 03/10] net: bridge: mrp: Add MRP interface used by netlink

[Allan W. Nielsen]

On 20.02.2020 11:08, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
>On 26/01/2020 15:28, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>> The 01/25/2020 20:16, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
>>> On 25.01.2020 16:20, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:37:26PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>>>> The 01/24/2020 18:43, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> br_mrp_flush - will flush the FDB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does this differ from a normal bridge flush? I assume there is a
>>>>>> way for user space to flush the bridge FDB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> If I seen corectly the normal bridge flush will clear the entire FDB for
>>>>> all the ports of the bridge. In this case it is require to clear FDB
>>>>> entries only for the ring ports.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it would be better to extend the current bridge netlink call to
>>>> be able to pass an optional interface to be flushed?  I'm not sure it
>>>> is a good idea to have two APIs doing very similar things.
>>> I agree.
>> I would look over this.
>>
>
>There's already a way to flush FDBs per-port - IFLA_BRPORT_FLUSH.
>
>>>
>>> And when looking at this again, I start to think that we should have
>>> extended the existing netlink interface with new commands, instead of
>>> adding a generic netlink.
>> We could do also that. The main reason why I have added a new generic
>> netlink was that I thought it would be clearer what commands are for MRP
>> configuration. But if you think that we should go forward by extending
>> existing netlink interface, that is perfectly fine for me.
>>
>>>
>>> /Allan
>>>
>>
>
>I don't mind extending the current netlink interface but the bridge already has
>a huge (the largest) set of options and each time we add a new option we have
>to adjust RTNL_MAX_TYPE. If you do decide to go this way maybe look into nesting
>all the MRP options under one master MRP element into the bridge options, example:
>[IFLA_BR_MRP]
>  [IFLA_BR_MRP_X]
>  [IFLA_BR_MRP_Y]
>  ...
Ahh, did not see this mail before responsing to the other one.

We can make it part of the BR netlink then.

/Allan