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, 19 Jan 2023 15:40:45 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     netdev@kapio-technology.com
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
        "maintainer:MICROCHIP KSZ SERIES ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER" 
        <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>, Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@mediatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= <clement.leger@bootlin.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:RENESAS RZ/N1 A5PSW SWITCH DRIVER" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/5] net: bridge: add dynamic flag to
 switchdev notifier
Message-ID: <20230119134045.fqdt6zrna5x3iavt@skbuf>
References: <20230117185714.3058453-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20230117185714.3058453-2-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20230117230806.ipwcbnq4jcc4qs7z@skbuf>
 <a3bba3eb856a00b5e5e0c1e2ffe8749a@kapio-technology.com>
 <20230119093358.gbyka2x4qbxxr43b@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230119093358.gbyka2x4qbxxr43b@skbuf>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:33:58AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:14:00PM +0100, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote:
> > > > +	item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
> > > 
> > > Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any
> > > further interpretations up to the consumer?
> > 
> > My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries,
> > thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a switchdev_notifier_fdb_info
> > struct the common case does not need to be entered.
> > Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct and if
> > it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they will get
> > dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find such an error.
> 
> I'll leave it up to bridge maintainers if this is preferable to patching
> all callers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE such that they set is_static=true.

Actually, why would you assume that all users of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE
want to add static FDB entries? You can't avoid inspecting the code and
making sure that the is_dyn/is_static flag is set correctly either way.