> -----Original Message----- > From: netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org] > On Behalf Of Keller, Jacob E > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:27 PM > To: vyase...@redhat.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Malek, Patryk <patryk.ma...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: removing bridge in vlan_filtering mode requests delete of > attached > ports main MAC address > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:vyase...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:22 AM > > To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Malek, Patryk <patryk.ma...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: removing bridge in vlan_filtering mode requests delete of > > attached > > ports main MAC address > > > > Hi Jake > > > > I think adding a !fdb->local should work. local fdb contain the address of > assigned > > to > > the ports of the bridge and those shouldn't be directly removed. > > > > If that works, that looks like the right solution. > > > > -vlad > > > > So this does prevent us from removing the port's address. However, if I add > two > devices to the bridge, then after removing the bridge, each device now keeps > both permanent addresses in their list, which isn't what we want is it? > > Do we even want to assign the local fdb addresses to every port? > > Obviously, I don't fully understand this code, so I think I'm missing > something > here. > > Regards, > Jake >
Ok, I tried this again, and it didn't end up crossing the local device addresses to each port. I'm not sure how that happened the first time yet, so maybe it is correct to skip removing local addresses... but if we skip removing them, wouldn't we want to skip adding them too? Thanks, Jake
