On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:20:36PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 01/18/2021 19:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:56:18PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > The reason was to stay away from STP, because you can't run these two
> > > protocols at the same time. Even though in SW, we reuse port's state.
> > > In our driver(which is not upstreamed), we currently implement
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE and just call the
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_STP_STATE.
> >
> > And isn't Rasmus's approach reasonable, in that it allows unmodified
> > switchdev drivers to offload MRP port states without creating
> > unnecessary code churn?
>
> I am sorry but I don't see this as the correct solution. In my opinion,
> I would prefer to have 3 extra lines in the driver and have a better
> view of what is happening. Than having 2 calls in the driver for
> different protocols.
I think the question boils down to: is a MRP-unaware driver expected to
work with the current bridge MRP code?
> If it is not a problem to have STP calls when you configure the MRP,
> then why not just remove SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE?
Good question, why not?