Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: fix vlan mcast
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
CC:     <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>,
        <bjorn@mork.no>
References: <20181024221059.21834-1-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
 <20181025.113441.567599603045046210.davem@davemloft.net>
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Message-ID: <12ca7599-e5f0-087f-674d-a887f3768913@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:25:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181025.113441.567599603045046210.davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi David,

On 10/25/18 1:34 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:10:55 +0300
> 
>> The cpsw holds separate mcast entires for vlan entries. At this moment
>> driver adds only not vlan mcast addresses, omitting vlan/mcast entries.
>> As result mcast for vlans doesn't work. It can be fixed by adding same
>> mcast entries for every created vlan, but this patchseries uses more
>> sophisticated way and allows to create mcast entries only for vlans
>> that really require it. Generic functions from this series can be
>> reused for fixing vlan and macvlan unicast.
> 
> This is a bug fix but targetted at net-next, and indeed it is quite
> invasive as it adds new core infrastructure and converts the generic
> vlan code over to using it.
> 
> Unfortunately net-next is closed.
> 
> So if you want this bug fixed in mainline you will have to come up
> with a less invasive fix, and resubmit this net-next approach when the
> net-next tree opens back up.

I think it's ok to wait as this issue was always here, so it's not critical.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii