On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Xin Long <lucien....@gmail.com> wrote: > yeah, because port fdb_flush is called by brport_store(), in the > common function. > do you think it''s redundant if we add a notification in bridge > fdb_flush to keep > consistence with port fdb_flush? just change it on patch 1/6.
- [PATCH net-next 1/6] bridge: add rtnl_lock in fdb_flus... Xin Long
- [PATCH net-next 2/6] bridge: simplify the forward... Xin Long
- [PATCH net-next 3/6] bridge: simplify the stp... Xin Long
- Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] bridge: simplify... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- [PATCH net-next 4/6] bridge: a netlink no... Xin Long
- [PATCH net-next 5/6] bridge: a netlin... Xin Long
- [PATCH net-next 6/6] bridge: a n... Xin Long
- Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] bri... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bridge:... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bri... Xin Long
- Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bri... Xin Long
- Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bri... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- Re: [PATCH net-next 5/6] bri... Xin Long
- Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] bridge: a ne... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] bridge:... Xin Long
- Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] bri... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] bridge: simplify the... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bridge: add rtnl_lock in... Nikolay Aleksandrov
- Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] bridge: support sending rntl ... Nikolay Aleksandrov