From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF20C2D0DA for ; Wed, 25 Dec 2019 07:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCA82071E for ; Wed, 25 Dec 2019 07:41:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="VkcsBfM7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726352AbfLYHlP (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Dec 2019 02:41:15 -0500 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:38959 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725992AbfLYHlP (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Dec 2019 02:41:15 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290A02104A; Wed, 25 Dec 2019 02:41:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 25 Dec 2019 02:41:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=sPOO2b DJAfTQOb+Uw326Q8lbgYFxqGDhpY2Qmykd3vc=; b=VkcsBfM7Zmwlj3VZyEbYRc a9TO9QGuuBfH2PIwJ5xagYaB2gPeQTv/0pgGfdmSiZtKquFL76/PpON23X1hQnCg oIQ/XzB0fDaHG2+mk3aZO6xXRE+FYxQR5P99NyW7F/MUoNhVjp3E6icP/bdXgY+D ASwv7fqT2NiGk4YmUcUTDquHfxhCfEtjsZ/2Uik9mfIRp9DIpIPTIBJTy83RPuck WvZLKXwFdynLJsxeaXfKrbNbCM114+HqJ7+Ao7AIsiDiDp5vvsJFU1vS5Fu9gPIH 8BZisWGr6tbCkBSrWnaPKshtKDKB6iD6dzg7H3tJv4dPHiI56BMVpYPWtdB+iwqg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvddvfedgieegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefkughoucfu tghhihhmmhgvlhcuoehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhgqeenucfkphepudelfe drgeejrdduieehrddvhedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehiughoshgthhes ihguohhstghhrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (unknown [193.47.165.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 925978005A; Wed, 25 Dec 2019 02:41:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 09:41:09 +0200 From: Ido Schimmel To: Russell King Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli , Ivan Vecera , Jiri Pirko , Vivien Didelot Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] net: switchdev: do not propagate bridge updates across bridges Message-ID: <20191225074109.GA8726@splinter> References: <20191222192235.GK25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20191224083931.GB895380@splinter> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191224083931.GB895380@splinter> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:39:33AM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 07:24:03PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > > When configuring a tree of independent bridges, propagating changes > > from the upper bridge across a bridge master to the lower bridge > > ports brings surprises. > > > > For example, a lower bridge may have vlan filtering enabled. It > > may have a vlan interface attached to the bridge master, which may > > then be incorporated into another bridge. As soon as the lower > > bridge vlan interface is attached to the upper bridge, the lower > > bridge has vlan filtering disabled. > > Interesting topology :) The change looks OK to me. I'll add the patch to > our internal tree and let it go through regression to make sure I didn't > miss anything. Will report the results tomorrow. Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel Tested-by: Ido Schimmel Thanks!