> -----Original Message----- > From: Rosen, Rami [mailto:rami.ro...@intel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:25 AM > To: Premkumar Jonnala; roopa > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] bridge: Enable configuration of ageing interval for > bridges > and switch devices. > > Hi, > > First, I agree about the need to propagate the ageing interval to switchdev > devices, so that hardware based aging can be setup correctly. > > Second, in this occasion, I want to mention the need to > turn off bridge ageing in the kernel as part of using switchdev devices. This > is > mentioned in > https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net- > next/+/master/Documentation/networking/switchdev.txt: > > ... > XXX: how to turn off ageing in kernel on a per-port basis or > otherwise prevent the kernel from ageing out the FDB entry? > ... > > One can think of the option of using value 0 of the ageing interval as an > indication to turn off bridge ageing in the kernel, and any other value bigger > than MIN_AGEING_INTERVAL_SECS to turn on bridge ageing.
I recall that there was a patch proposed to prevent ageing of fdb entried by bridge in kernel, when the fdb entry was added due to notification by switch device. Please see: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg314770.html Somehow the patch is not visible in the net-next pull. -Prem > > As another option for a *per-port* boolean flag for enabling/disabling ageing, > one can think of adding an IFLA_BRPORT_AGEING bool flag (and BR_AGEING) > for IFLA_PROTINFO. > > Regards, > Rami Rosen > Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
