Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:44:24PM CET, f...@sysclose.org wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:30:41 +0100 >Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: > >> Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:26:30PM CET, f...@sysclose.org wrote: >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >After the commit[1] below, we can't set ageing on a Linux bridge >> >device to zero. It seems rocker needs the minimum value, but we >> >can't break an old and valid Linux bridge behavior. >> >> The commit below adds check if the value being set is within >> BR_MIN_AGEING_TIME and BR_MAX_AGEING_TIME. I believe that the check is >> correct as it implements the standard. >> >> Why do you set ageing_time to 0? Why don't just just disable learning? > >It's a documented behavior: >http://www.linuxcertif.com/man/5/ifcfg-bridge/ >http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/bridge >http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network.bridge/2060
0 makes entries permanent. Fair enough. Feel free to send patch moving the check inside switchdev_port_attr_set or into drivers. I can put it in my todo list if you want. Thanks! > >fbl > >> >> >> > >> >[1] commit c62987bbd8a1a1664f99e89e3959339350a6131e >> >Author: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> >> >Date: Thu Oct 8 19:23:19 2015 -0700 >> > >> > bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time down to switchdev >> > >> > Use SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP to skip over ports in bridge that >> > don't support setting ageing_time (or setting bridge attrs in >> > general). >> > If push fails, don't update ageing_time in bridge and return err >> > to user. >> > If push succeeds, update ageing_time in bridge and run gc_timer >> > now to recalabrate when to run gc_timer next, based on new >> > ageing_time. >> > Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> > Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> >> > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >fbl >> > > > > >-- >fbl >
