[RFC PATCH net-next 1/5] net: bridge: add dynamic flag to switchdev notifier

[netdev at kapio-technology.com]

On 2023-01-19 14:40, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:33:58AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:14:00PM +0100, netdev at kapio-technology.com 
>> wrote:
>> > > > +	item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
>> > >
>> > > Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any
>> > > further interpretations up to the consumer?
>> >
>> > My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries,
>> > thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a switchdev_notifier_fdb_info
>> > struct the common case does not need to be entered.
>> > Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct and if
>> > it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they will get
>> > dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find such an error.
>> 
>> I'll leave it up to bridge maintainers if this is preferable to 
>> patching
>> all callers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE such that they set 
>> is_static=true.
> 
> Actually, why would you assume that all users of 
> SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE
> want to add static FDB entries? You can't avoid inspecting the code and
> making sure that the is_dyn/is_static flag is set correctly either way.

Well, up until this patch set there is no option, besides entries from 
SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE events will get the external learned flag 
set, so they will not be aged by the bridge, and so dynamic entries that 
way don't make much sense I think. Is that not right?