From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks•com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber•org>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail•com>,
davem@davemloft•net, netdev@vger•kernel.org, jhs@mojatatu•com,
wkok@cumulusnetworks•com, sfeldma@cumulusnetworks•com,
shm@cumulusnetworks•com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] bridge: Add master device name to bridge fdb show
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 21:27:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53895A48.2040203@cumulusnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140530073614.0a48f2bd@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
On 5/30/14, 7:36 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2014 18:53:36 -0700
> Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks•com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/14, 1:00 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>> On 05/28/2014 01:40 AM, roopa@cumulusnetworks•com wrote:
>>>> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@cumulusnetworks•com>
>>>>
>>>> (This patch depends on net-next patch titled
>>>> "Add bridge ifindex to bridge fdb notify msgs")
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds master dev name from NDA_MASTER netlink attribute
>>>> to bridge fdb show output
>>>>
>>>> current iproute2 tries to print 'master' in the output if NTF_MASTER
>>>> is present. But, kernel today does not set NTF_MASTER during dump
>>>> requests. Which means I have not seen iproute2 bridge cmd print 'master' atall.
>>>> This patch overrides the NTF_MASTER flag if NDA_MASTER attribute is present.
>>>>
>>>> Example output:
>>>>
>>>> before this patch:
>>>> # bridge fdb show
>>>> 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 permanent
>>>> 44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 permanent
>>>> 44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 permanent
>>>>
>>>> After this patch:
>>>> # bridge fdb show
>>>> 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 master br-2003 permanent
>>>> 44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 master br-2003 permanent
>>>> 44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 master br-2004 permanent
>>> 'master' is already a reserved word in the bridge command and
>>> has a slightly different connotation. May be replace it with
>>> 'bridge' or something similar.
>> I am not so convinced about the 'bridge' keyword. The way i see it is: I
>> am just adding more context to the existing 'master' keyword. In the
>> cases i am pointing out above 'master' is a bridge.
>> If the only argument is that it changes existing output, ...i agree. I
>> have expressed slight concerns about that before.
>>>> For comparision with the above, below is the output for NTF_SELF today,
>>>> # bridge fdb show
>>>> 33:33:00:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
>>>> 01:00:5e:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
>>>> 33:33:ff:00:01:cc dev eth0 self permanent
>>>>
>>>> If change in output is a concern, 'master' can be put at the end of the fdb
>>>> output line or made optional with -d[etails] option.
>>> As Stephen always mentions, iproute commands have to be invertable.
>>> In other words, what you get out of the show command you should
>>> be able to feed back into a set command.
>>>
>>> As such, it would probably be a good thing to support
>>> bridge fdb set 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 bridge br-2003 permanent
>> We did discuss this on the other thread (RFC), and it does not seem
>> necessary.
>> two things:
>> - like i indicated above, introducing 'bridge' to mean 'master' seems
>> to add more confusion and
>> seems redundant. But, maybe that's just me.
>> - having user specify master when kernel can derive it
>> seems unnecessary (agree that for code symmetry we could add master
>> during sets but make it optional)
>>
>>> and I think this ends up being something very close to what
>>> Jamal already proposed.
>>>
>>> May be work together and come up with a single syntax.
>> Ack.
>> looking at jamals patch for fdb show filters, if i consider my approach
>> of using 'master' to represent a bridge,
>> his syntax would look like,
>>
>> bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV]
>> bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV] [master BRDEV]
> I prefer bridge keyword since master is not used in IEEE 802
> documents.
but set also uses 'master' ..and the bridge is referenced using 'master'
in almost all commands
#ip link set dev brport master brdev
so, using 'bridge' and 'master' interchangeably seems a bit confusing.
But, if the preference is 'bridge' i will resubmit this patch with
'bridge' shortly.
Thanks!.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-31 4:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-28 5:40 [PATCH iproute2] bridge: Add master device name to bridge fdb show roopa
2014-05-28 20:00 ` Vlad Yasevich
2014-05-29 1:53 ` Roopa Prabhu
2014-05-30 14:36 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-05-31 4:27 ` Roopa Prabhu [this message]
2014-05-31 11:10 ` Jamal Hadi Salim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53895A48.2040203@cumulusnetworks.com \
--to=roopa@cumulusnetworks$(echo .)com \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu$(echo .)com \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=sfeldma@cumulusnetworks$(echo .)com \
--cc=shm@cumulusnetworks$(echo .)com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber$(echo .)org \
--cc=vyasevich@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=wkok@cumulusnetworks$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox