On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: > On 03/16/2016 03:45 PM, Xin Long wrote: >> do you think it''s redundant if we add a notification in bridge >> fdb_flush to keep >> consistence with port fdb_flush? >> > Hmm, technically we're doing this via a sysfs option and the netlink fdb flush > one will generate a notification, so I'd say let's make them all consistent > and > make them all generate a notification, and also making the bridge fdb_flush > use > the bridge_store_parm should be trivial. > okay, I will also make this one use bridge_store_parm.
Thanks
