[Bridge] [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: bridge: Notify about !added_by_user FDB entries

[Nikolay Aleksandrov]

Do not automatically bail out on sending notifications about activity on
non-user-added FDB entries. Instead, notify about this activity except
for cases where the activity itself originates in a notification, to
avoid sending duplicate notifications.
---
net/bridge/br.c | 4 ++--
net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
net/bridge/br_private.h | 4 ++--
net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

Hi Petr,
We already have 7 different fdb delete functions, I'm really not a fan of
adding yet another one for such trivial change.
Why don't you just add the new notify parameter to the already existing
fdb_delete() ? (actually about the name see below)
IMO it's confusing - if one wants a notification then use fdb_delete() or __fdb_delete(true)
vs __fdb_delete(false) if a notification is not required. I think simply having the last
parameter everywhere for fdb_delete() shows the intention clearer and avoids another
fdb delete function.

Another point, the notify parameter has a confusing name in this context because
you're controlling the switchdev notifications not the rtnetlink ones. I'd suggest
changing the name to something more descriptive like swdev_notify, otherwise you
could get the funny end result of calling __fdb_notify() with notify == false which
to me means don't notify. :-)

Also please add the bridge maintainers to the CC list.

Thanks,
Nik

[Petr Machata]

Post by Nikolay Aleksandrov

Do not automatically bail out on sending notifications about activity on
non-user-added FDB entries. Instead, notify about this activity except
for cases where the activity itself originates in a notification, to
avoid sending duplicate notifications.
---
net/bridge/br.c | 4 ++--
net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
net/bridge/br_private.h | 4 ++--
net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 2 +-
4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

Hi Petr,
We already have 7 different fdb delete functions, I'm really not a fan of
adding yet another one for such trivial change.
Why don't you just add the new notify parameter to the already existing
fdb_delete() ? (actually about the name see below)
IMO it's confusing - if one wants a notification then use fdb_delete() or __fdb_delete(true)
vs __fdb_delete(false) if a notification is not required. I think simply having the last
parameter everywhere for fdb_delete() shows the intention clearer and avoids another
fdb delete function.

All right--this is how I had it written actually, but then decided to do
this wrapping, because so many of the calls end up being true. I'll send
a v2 with just the extra argument.

Post by Nikolay Aleksandrov
Another point, the notify parameter has a confusing name in this context because
you're controlling the switchdev notifications not the rtnetlink ones. I'd suggest
changing the name to something more descriptive like swdev_notify, otherwise you
could get the funny end result of calling __fdb_notify() with notify == false which
to me means don't notify. :-)

OK, swdev_notify it will be.

Post by Nikolay Aleksandrov
Also please add the bridge maintainers to the CC list.

***@lists.linux-foundation.org? I saw it's a moderated list and for
some reason that made me think it's not meant for patch postings. I'll
add them the next time.

Thanks,
Petr