Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 30 Jul 2021 19:24:03 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@mediatek.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] net: dsa: tag_mtk: skip address learning on
 transmit to standalone ports
Message-ID: <20210730162403.p2dnwvwwgsxttomg@skbuf>
References: <20210728175327.1150120-1-dqfext@gmail.com>
 <20210728175327.1150120-2-dqfext@gmail.com>
 <20210728183705.4gea64qlbe64kkpl@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210728183705.4gea64qlbe64kkpl@skbuf>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 09:37:05PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Otherwise this is as correct as can be without implementing TX
> forwarding offload for the bridge (which you've explained why it doesn't
> map 1:1 with what your hw can do). But just because a port is under a bridge
> doesn't mean that the only packets it sends belong to that bridge. Think
> AF_PACKET sockets, PTP etc. The bridge also has a no_linklocal_learn
> option that maybe should be taken into consideration for drivers that
> can do something meaningful about it. Anyway, food for thought.

Considering that you also have the option of setting
ds->assisted_learning_on_cpu_port = true and this will have less false
positives, what are the reasons why you did not choose that approach?