On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:53:42AM +0100, Alexandra Winter wrote: > Actually, I found your first (more verbose) proposal more helpful.
Sorry, I don't understand. Do you want me to copy the whole explanation from bridge fdb add to bridge link set? > >> Maybe I misunderstand this sentence, but I can do a 'bridge fdb add' > >> without 'self' > >> on the bridge device. And the address shows up under 'bridge fdb show'. > >> So what does mandatory mean here? > > > > It's right in the next sentence: > > > >> The flag is set by default if "master" is not specified. > > > > It's mandatory and implicit if "master" is not specified, ergo 'bridge > > fdb add dev br0' will work because 'master' is not specified (it is > > implicitly 'bridge fdb add dev br0 self'. But 'bridge fdb add dev br0 > > master' will fail, because the 'self' flag is no longer implicit (since > > 'master' was specified) but mandatory and absent. > > > > I'm not sure what I can do to improve this. > > > Maybe the sentence under 'master': > " If the specified > +device is a master itself, such as a bridge, this flag is invalid." > is sufficient to defien this situation. And no need to explain mandatory > implicit defaults > in the first paragraph? I don't understand this either. Could you paste here how you think this paragraph should read?
