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;
From:   DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: bridge: switchdev: allow port isolation to be offloaded
Date:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 14:04:10 +0800
Message-Id: <20210812060410.1848228-1-dqfext@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210811215833.yst5tzgfvih2q4y2@skbuf>
References: <20210811135247.1703496-1-dqfext@gmail.com> <YRRDcGWaWHgBkNhQ@shredder> <20210811214506.4pf5t3wgabs5blqj@skbuf> <YRRGsL60WeDGQOnv@shredder> <20210811215833.yst5tzgfvih2q4y2@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:58:33AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:52:48AM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > 
> > If the purpose is correctness, then this is not the only flag that was
> > missed. BR_HAIRPIN_MODE is also relevant for the data path, for example.
> 
> I never wanted to suggest that I'm giving a comprehensive answer, I just
> answered Qingfang's punctual question here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CALW65jbotyW0MSOd-bd1TH_mkiBWhhRCQ29jgn+d12rXdj2pZA@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Tobias also pointed out the same issue about BR_MULTICAST_TO_UNICAST in
> conjunction with tx_fwd_offload (although the same is probably true even
> without it):
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/cover/20210426170411.1789186-1-tobias@waldekranz.com/
> 
> > Anyway, the commit message needs to be reworded to reflect the true
> > purpose of the patch.
> 
> Agree, and potentially extended with all the bridge port flags which are
> broken without switchdev driver intervention.

So, what else flags should be added to BR_PORT_FLAGS_HW_OFFLOAD?