From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965690AbaCSQJU (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:09:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:42576 "EHLO mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965484AbaCSQJQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:09:16 -0400 Message-ID: <1395245350.1741.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 1/3] bridge: preserve random init MAC address From: Toshiaki Makita To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Toshiaki Makita , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Hemminger , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 01:09:10 +0900 In-Reply-To: References: <1394680527-28970-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <1394680527-28970-2-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <5328E802.3030901@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5328ED25.1040900@lab.ntt.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.3 (3.8.3-2.fc19) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 18:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Toshiaki Makita > wrote: > > (2014/03/19 9:50), Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Toshiaki Makita > >> 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? br_stp_change_bridge_id() is currently called only if bridge_id.addr should be changed. If the addr should not be changed but some updates are needed, br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() doesn't seem to fit into it. Toshiaki Makita