Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133049-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:09:46 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Joseph Huang <joseph.huang.2024@gmail.com>
Cc: Joseph Huang <Joseph.Huang@garmin.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
	Linus =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=FCssing?= <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/10] MC Flood disable and snooping
Message-ID: <4511d7cc-d7c0-4095-8a37-b2eefffb0ca2@lunn.ch>
References: <20240402001137.2980589-1-Joseph.Huang@garmin.com>
 <f5512e7b-b572-4444-9d56-1eed9bbcda6b@lunn.ch>
 <4c28d59e-0c4f-462c-8a1c-d4bd72e25115@gmail.com>
 <630c37d6-b1c6-466b-8d00-fdc84585d5e7@lunn.ch>
 <2c3cddda-7ac6-4fc2-b1fa-775c048259e1@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2c3cddda-7ac6-4fc2-b1fa-775c048259e1@gmail.com>

> > Thanks for the explanation. So i think the key part which you said
> > above is:
> > 
> >    At the same time, the bridge will also forward the packet to every
> >    mrouter port so that listeners beyond mrouter ports can receive that
> >    multicast packet as well.
> > 
> > How does the bridge know about the mrouter port? It seems like the
> 
> The bridge learns about the existence of the Querier by the reception of
> Queries. The bridge will mark the port which it received Queries from as the
> mrouter port.
> 
> > bridge needs to pass that information down to the switch. Is the
> 
> The bridge does pass that information down to switchdev. Patch 5 adds DSA
> handling of that event as well. Patches 9 and 10 adds the support in the
> mv88e6xxx driver.

I've not been looking at the details too much for this patchset. It
does however seem that some parts are controversial, and others just
seem like a bug fix. Does it make sense to split this into two
patchsets?

	Andrew