On 01/08/2019 17:07, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > Hi Horatiu, > Overall I think MDB is the right way, we'd like to contain the multicast code. > A few comments below. > > On 01/08/2019 15:50, Horatiu Vultur wrote: [snip] >> >> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur >> Co-developed-by: Allan W. Nielsen >> Signed-off-by: Allan W. Nielsen >> --- >> include/linux/if_bridge.h | 1 + >> include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h | 1 + >> net/bridge/br_device.c | 7 +++++-- >> net/bridge/br_forward.c | 3 ++- >> net/bridge/br_input.c | 13 ++++++++++-- >> net/bridge/br_mdb.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> net/bridge/br_multicast.c | 4 +++- >> net/bridge/br_private.h | 3 ++- >> 8 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> > > Overall I don't think we need this BR_PKT_MULTICAST_L2, we could do the below much > easier and without the checks if you use a per-mdb flag that says it's to be treated > as a MULTICAST_L2 entry. Then you remove all of the BR_PKT_MULTICAST_L2 code (see the > attached patch based on this one for example). and continue processing it as it is processed today. > We'll keep the fast-path with minimal number of new conditionals. > > Something like the patch I've attached to this reply, note that it is not complete > just to show the intent, you'll have to re-work br_mdb_notify() to make it proper > and there're most probably other details I've missed. If you find even better/less > complex way to do it then please do. > > Cheers, > Nik Oops, I sent back your original patch. Here's the actually changed version I was talking about. Thanks, Nik