On Tuesday 20 December 2011 20:11:17 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I had to go do real work last week.
> Let me test and look at it more detail.
> There is no urgency, the problem has existed for many years.
Please excuse me. It was only my impatience and "deferred" status on the
David's patchwork s
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:59:11 +0200
Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> Hello, Stephen!
> I can not understand your silence.
> There are issues fixed by the patch in question. For example, if the
> interface
> is left in blocking state after stp was turned off, that state is not
> stable - it can flip t
Hello, Stephen!
I can not understand your silence.
There are issues fixed by the patch in question. For example, if the interface
is left in blocking state after stp was turned off, that state is not
stable - it can flip to forwarding state in unpredictable times, e.g. when
_any other_ slave of
On Wednesday 14 December 2011 02:16:13 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:36:25 +0200
>
> Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > If there is a slave in blocking state when stp is turned off, that slave
> > will remain in blocking state for indefinitely long time until interface
> > state chan
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:36:25 +0200
Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> If there is a slave in blocking state when stp is turned off, that slave will
> remain in blocking state for indefinitely long time until interface state
> changed. We should push all blocking slaves into forwarding state after
> tu
If there is a slave in blocking state when stp is turned off, that slave will
remain in blocking state for indefinitely long time until interface state
changed. We should push all blocking slaves into forwarding state after
turning stp off.
Signed-off-by: Vitalii Demianets
---
net/bridge/br_
