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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:13:54 +0200
From:   netdev@kapio-technology.com
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.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
In-Reply-To: <YwR4MQ2xOMlvKocw@shredder>
References: <5a4cfc6246f621d006af69d4d1f61ed1@kapio-technology.com>
 <YvkM7UJ0SX+jkts2@shredder>
 <34dd1318a878494e7ab595f8727c7d7d@kapio-technology.com>
 <YwHZ1J9DZW00aJDU@shredder>
 <ce4266571b2b47ae8d56bd1f790cb82a@kapio-technology.com>
 <YwMW4iGccDu6jpaZ@shredder>
 <c2822d6dd66a1239ff8b7bfd06019008@kapio-technology.com>
 <YwR4MQ2xOMlvKocw@shredder>
User-Agent: Gigahost Webmail
Message-ID: <9dcb4db4a77811308c56fe5b9b7c5257@kapio-technology.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-08-23 08:48, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:49:28AM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com 
> wrote:

>> As I am not familiar with roaming in this context, I need to know how 
>> the SW
>> bridge should behave in this case.
> 

>> In this case, is the roaming only between locked ports or does the
>> roaming include that the entry can move to a unlocked port, resulting
>> in the locked flag getting removed?
> 
> Any two ports. If the "locked" entry in mv88e6xxx cannot move once
> installed, then the "sticky" flag accurately describes it.
> 

But since I am also doing the SW bridge implementation without mv88e6xxx 
I need it to function according to needs.
Thus the locked entries created in the bridge I shall not put the sticky 
flag on, but there will be the situation where a locked entry can move 
to an unlocked port, which we regarded as a bug. In that case there is 
two possibilities, the locked entry can move to an unlocked port with 
the locked flag being removed or the locked entry can only move to 
another locked port?