From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752706AbbFCBwt (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:52:49 -0400 Received: from mail.savoirfairelinux.com ([209.172.62.77]:54405 "EHLO mail.savoirfairelinux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751599AbbFCBwl (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:52:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:52:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Vivien Didelot To: Guenter Roeck Cc: netdev , David , Florian Fainelli , Andrew Lunn , Scott Feldman , Jiri Pirko , =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=A9rome?= Oufella , linux-kernel , kernel , Chris Healy Message-ID: <760410371.953763.1433296358640.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com> In-Reply-To: <556DBBC5.5050009@roeck-us.net> References: <1433208470-25338-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <1433208470-25338-7-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <556DBBC5.5050009@roeck-us.net> Subject: Re: [RFC 6/9] net: dsa: mv88e6352: allow egress of unknown multicast MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1153 (ZimbraWebClient - FF38 (Linux)/8.6.0_GA_1153) Thread-Topic: mv88e6352: allow egress of unknown multicast Thread-Index: ZfeYjJnD5UurhM4fXdaKCZnJoDkblA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Guenter, On Jun 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Guenter Roeck linux@roeck-us.net wrote: > On 06/01/2015 06:27 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote: >> This patch disables egress of unknown unicast destination addresses. >> > > Hi Vivien, > > seems to me this patch is unrelated to the rest of the series. > > Not sure if we really want this. If an address is in the arp cache > but has timed out from the bridge database, any unicast to that address > will no longer be sent. If the bridge database has been flushed for some > reason, such as a spanning tree reconfiguration, we'll have a hard time > to send anything. > > What is the problem you are trying to solve with this patch ? TBH, I don't remember which one of the test cases I described in 0/9 this patch was solving... Some ARP request didn't propagate correctly without this, IIRC. I'll try to revert the change and do my tests again in order to isolate the problem. Thanks, -v