Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v1 7/7] macvlan: add FDB bridge ops and new macvlan mode

From: Sridhar Samudrala <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:46:42 -0700

On 4/10/2012 8:35 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 8:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:26:21AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2012 7:35 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:25:58AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>> Hmm okay, but this would mean we should convert
>>>>>> MACVLAN_MODE_PASSTHRU_NOPROMISC to something
>>>>>> that can combined with all modes. E.g.
>>>>>> MACVLAN_MODE_BRIDGE | MACVLAN_MODE_FLAG_XXXXX
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and document that it does not promise to flood
>>>>>> multicast.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How about changing MACVLAN_MODE_PASSTHRU_NOPROMISC ->  MACVLAN_MODE_NOPORMISC
>>>>> for this patch. Then a follow on series can rework bridge
>>>>> and VEPA to use it as well.
>>>> Right. We probably need a better name if it's going to
>>>> affect other things besides promisc though.
>>>>
>>> how about MACVLAN_MODE_FDBFLAG?
>> The idea being that no one figures out what this means so
>> no one will make any wrong assumptions? ;)
>>
> Well its a flag to enable the FDB (forwarding database) ops
> and skip dev_set_promisc() on passthru mode. Any better ideas?
> Maybe MACVLAN_MODE_FDBENABLE or MACVLAN_MODE_MANAGE_FDB?
Do we need to introduce another mode? I think this patch is enabling 
passthru mode without the need
to put the underlying device in promiscuous mode. So basically we can 
consider this patch as
an optimization.

Thanks
Sridhar