On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshi...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > (2014/03/19 9:50), Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Toshiaki Makita >> <makita.toshi...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> nit, >>> If the last detached port happens to have the same addr as >>> random_init_addr, this seems to call br_stp_change_bridge_id() even >>> though bridge_id is not changed. >> >> Ah good point. >> >>> Shouldn't the assignment of random_init_addr be done before the check of >>> "no change"? >> >> Good question, should we even allow two ports to have the same MAC >> address or should we complain and refuse to add it? If so that should >> mean we should also have to monitor any manual address changes or >> events for address changes on the ports. > > This was recently discussed by Stephen and me. > I'm thinking it should be allowed. > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=139182743919257&w=2
Great now that that's sorted out though I still think calling br_stp_change_bridge_id() is right just as calling the update features as the device is different. It could however be confusing when this situation is run and folks might report odd bugs unless we could tell them apart clearly. Thoughts? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
