Le 07/03/2011 19:34, Stephen Hemminger a écrit : > This makes the bridge device behave like a physical device. > In earlier releases the bridge always asserted carrier. This > changes the behavior so that bridge device carrier is on only > if one or more ports are in the forwarding state. This > should help IPv6 autoconfiguration, DHCP, and routing daemons. > > I did brief testing with Network and Virt manager and they > seem fine, but since this changes behavior of bridge, it should > wait until net-next (2.6.39). > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger<[email protected]> > > --- > net/bridge/br_device.c | 4 ++++ > net/bridge/br_stp.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > net/bridge/br_stp_timer.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c 2011-03-07 08:40:08.913599513 -0800 > +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c 2011-03-07 08:40:48.382377389 -0800 > @@ -78,6 +78,8 @@ static int br_dev_open(struct net_device > { > struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev); > > + netif_carrier_off(dev); > + > br_features_recompute(br); > netif_start_queue(dev); > br_stp_enable_bridge(br); > @@ -94,6 +96,8 @@ static int br_dev_stop(struct net_device > { > struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev); > > + netif_carrier_off(dev); > + > br_stp_disable_bridge(br); > br_multicast_stop(br); > > --- a/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2011-03-07 08:41:58.619783678 -0800 > +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2011-03-07 08:53:58.953558810 -0800 > @@ -397,28 +397,37 @@ static void br_make_forwarding(struct ne > void br_port_state_selection(struct net_bridge *br) > { > struct net_bridge_port *p; > + unsigned int liveports = 0; > > /* Don't change port states if userspace is handling STP */ > if (br->stp_enabled == BR_USER_STP) > return; > > list_for_each_entry(p,&br->port_list, list) { > - if (p->state != BR_STATE_DISABLED) { > - if (p->port_no == br->root_port) { > - p->config_pending = 0; > - p->topology_change_ack = 0; > - br_make_forwarding(p); > - } else if (br_is_designated_port(p)) { > - del_timer(&p->message_age_timer); > - br_make_forwarding(p); > - } else { > - p->config_pending = 0; > - p->topology_change_ack = 0; > - br_make_blocking(p); > - } > + if (p->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED) > + continue; > + > + if (p->port_no == br->root_port) { > + p->config_pending = 0; > + p->topology_change_ack = 0; > + br_make_forwarding(p); > + } else if (br_is_designated_port(p)) { > + del_timer(&p->message_age_timer); > + br_make_forwarding(p); > + } else { > + p->config_pending = 0; > + p->topology_change_ack = 0; > + br_make_blocking(p);
Is the above part really related to the purpose of this patch? It looks like (good) cleanup, but should be in a different patch. Except from this comment, Reviewed-by: Nicolas de Pesloüan <[email protected]> > } > > + if (p->state == BR_STATE_FORWARDING) > + ++liveports; > } > + > + if (liveports == 0) > + netif_carrier_off(br->dev); > + else > + netif_carrier_on(br->dev); > } > > /* called under bridge lock */ > --- a/net/bridge/br_stp_timer.c 2011-03-07 08:53:25.728770710 -0800 > +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_timer.c 2011-03-07 08:53:40.273116636 -0800 > @@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ static void br_forward_delay_timer_expir > p->state = BR_STATE_FORWARDING; > if (br_is_designated_for_some_port(br)) > br_topology_change_detection(br); > + netif_carrier_on(br->dev); > } > br_log_state(p); > spin_unlock(&br->lock); > _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
