From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755920AbbFBHpa (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 03:45:30 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:35519 "EHLO mail-qk0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752142AbbFBHpV (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 03:45:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <556D522E.90607@roeck-us.net> References: <1433208470-25338-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <1433208470-25338-4-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <556D522E.90607@roeck-us.net> From: Scott Feldman Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:44:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 3/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for VTU ops To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Vivien Didelot , Netdev , "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli , Andrew Lunn , Jiri Pirko , Jerome Oufella , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kernel@savoirfairelinux.com, Chris Healy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: [cut] > I brought this up before. No idea if my e-mail got lost or what happened. > > We use a fid per port, and a fid per bridge group. With VLANs, this is > completely > ignored, ahd there is only a single fid per vlan for the entire switch. > > Either per-port fids are unnecessary as well, or something is wrong here, > or I am missing something. Can you explain why we only need a single fid > per vlan, even if we have multiple bridge groups and the same vlan is > configured in all of them ? That brings up an interesting point about having multiple bridges with the same vlan configured. I struggled with that problem with rocker also and I don't have an answer other than "don't do that". Or, better put, if you have multiple bridge on the same vlan, just use one bridge for that vlan. Otherwise, I don't know how at the device level to partition the vlan between the bridges. Maybe that's what Vivien is facing also? I can see how this works for software-only bridges, because they should be isolated from each other and independent. But when offloading to a device which sees VLAN XXX global across the entire switch, I don't see how we can preserve the bridge boundaries. I hope I'm not misunderstanding the issue here; if I am, I apologize. -scott