Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:54:47 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     netdev@kapio-technology.com
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry
 flag to drivers
Message-ID: <20220721115447.cxfiromwtxw4ukv4@skbuf>
References: <YsqPWK67U0+Iw2Ru@shredder>
 <d3f674dc6b4f92f2fda3601685c78ced@kapio-technology.com>
 <Ys69DiAwT0Md+6ai@shredder>
 <648ba6718813bf76e7b973150b73f028@kapio-technology.com>
 <20220717125718.mj7b3j3jmltu6gm5@skbuf>
 <a6ec816279b282a4ea72252a7400d5b3@kapio-technology.com>
 <20220717135951.ho4raw3bzwlgixpb@skbuf>
 <e1c1e7c114f0226b116d9549cea8e7a9@kapio-technology.com>
 <20220717150821.ehgtbnh6kmcbmx6u@skbuf>
 <480c7e1e9faa207f37258d8e1b955adc@kapio-technology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <480c7e1e9faa207f37258d8e1b955adc@kapio-technology.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 06:10:22PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote:
> Okay, I see the problem you refer to. I think that we have to accept some
> limitations unless you think that just zeroing the specific port bit in the
> DPV would be a better solution, and there wouldn't be caveats with that
> besides having to do a FDB search etc to get the correct DPV if I am not too
> mistaken.

No, honestly I believe that what we should do to improve the limitation
is to have proper ATU database separation between one VLAN-unaware
bridge and another (i.e. what is now MV88E6XXX_FID_BRIDGED to be one FID
per bridge).