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:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 01:59:33 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Hans Schultz <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>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.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>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.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>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/6] net: dsa: propagate flags down towards
 drivers
Message-ID: <20230327225933.plm5raegywbe7g2a@skbuf>
References: <20230318141010.513424-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20230318141010.513424-3-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20230327115206.jk5q5l753aoelwus@skbuf>
 <87355qb48h.fsf@kapio-technology.com>
 <20230327160009.bdswnalizdv2u77z@skbuf>
 <87pm8tooe1.fsf@kapio-technology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87pm8tooe1.fsf@kapio-technology.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:49:58PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
> My first approach was to use the SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE event
> and not the SWITCHDEV_FDB_OFFLOADED event as the first would set the
> external learned flag which is not aged out by the bridge.

Link to patch? I don't see any SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE call in
either the v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230130173429.3577450-6-netdev@kapio-technology.com/
or the RFC:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230117185714.3058453-6-netdev@kapio-technology.com/
and the change log does not mention it either.

> I have at some point earlier asked why there would be two quite
> equivalent flags and what the difference between them are, but I didn't
> get a response.

Actually, the part which you are now posing as a question (what is the
difference?) was part of the premise of your earlier question (there is
no difference => why do we have both?).
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/d972e76bed896b229d9df4da81ad8eb4@kapio-technology.com/

I believe that no one answered because the question was confused and it
wasn't really clear what you were asking.

> 
> Now I see the difference and that I cannot use the offloaded flag
> without changing the behaviour of the system as I actually change the
> behaviour of the offloaded flag in this version of the patch-set.
> 
> So if the idea of a 'synthetically' learned fdb entry from the driver
> using the SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE event from the driver towards the
> bridge instead is accepted, I can go with that?
> (thus removing all the changes in the patch-set regarding the offloaded
> flag ofcourse)

which idea is that, again?