[Bridge] [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for unimplemented mrp state

Horatiu Vultur horatiu.vultur at microchip.com
Mon Jan 18 20:20:36 UTC 2021


The 01/18/2021 19:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:56:18PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > The reason was to stay away from STP, because you can't run these two
> > protocols at the same time. Even though in SW, we reuse port's state.
> > In our driver(which is not upstreamed), we currently implement
> > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE and just call the
> > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_STP_STATE.
> 
> And isn't Rasmus's approach reasonable, in that it allows unmodified
> switchdev drivers to offload MRP port states without creating
> unnecessary code churn?

I am sorry but I don't see this as the correct solution. In my opinion,
I would prefer to have 3 extra lines in the driver and have a better
view of what is happening. Than having 2 calls in the driver for
different protocols.
If it is not a problem to have STP calls when you configure the MRP,
then why not just remove SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE?

> 
> Also, if it has no in-kernel users, why does it even exist as a
> switchdev attribute?

-- 
/Horatiu


More information about the Bridge mailing list