On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:30:41 +0100 Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
> Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:26:30PM CET, f...@sysclose.org wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > >After the commit[1] below, we can't set ageing on a Linux bridge > >device to zero. It seems rocker needs the minimum value, but we > >can't break an old and valid Linux bridge behavior. > > The commit below adds check if the value being set is within > BR_MIN_AGEING_TIME and BR_MAX_AGEING_TIME. I believe that the check is > correct as it implements the standard. > > Why do you set ageing_time to 0? Why don't just just disable learning? It's a documented behavior: http://www.linuxcertif.com/man/5/ifcfg-bridge/ http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/networking/bridge http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network.bridge/2060 fbl > > > > > >[1] commit c62987bbd8a1a1664f99e89e3959339350a6131e > >Author: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> > >Date: Thu Oct 8 19:23:19 2015 -0700 > > > > bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time down to switchdev > > > > Use SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP to skip over ports in bridge that > > don't support setting ageing_time (or setting bridge attrs in > > general). > > If push fails, don't update ageing_time in bridge and return err > > to user. > > If push succeeds, update ageing_time in bridge and run gc_timer > > now to recalabrate when to run gc_timer next, based on new > > ageing_time. > > Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> > > Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net> > > > > > >-- > >fbl > > -- fbl
