On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:22:24PM -0700, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> all great points. My only reason to explore RTM_DELNEIGH is to see if we can
> find a recipe to support similar bulk deletes of other objects handled via
> rtm msgs in the future. Plus, it allows you to maintain symmetry between
>
On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:17:14 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > Yup, basically the policy is defined in the core, so the types are
> > known. We can extract the fields from the message there, even if
> > the exact meaning of the fields gets established in the callback.
>
> That sounds nice,
On 11/04/2022 23:48, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:34:23 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 22:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
all great points. My only reason to explore RTM_DELNEIGH is to see if we
can find a recipe to support similar bulk deletes of other
On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:34:23 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 22:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> all great points. My only reason to explore RTM_DELNEIGH is to see if we
> >> can find a recipe to support similar bulk deletes of other objects
> >> handled via rtm msgs in the
On 11/04/2022 22:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:22:24 -0700 Roopa Prabhu wrote:
I thought about that option, but I didn't like overloading delneigh like
that.
del currently requires a mac address and we need to either signal the
device supports> a null
On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:22:24 -0700 Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> >> I thought about that option, but I didn't like overloading delneigh like
> >> that.
> >> del currently requires a mac address and we need to either signal the
> >> device supports> a null mac, or we should push that verification to
>
On 4/11/22 11:31, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
On 11/04/2022 21:18, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
On 11/04/2022 21:08, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
On 4/11/22 10:29, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
Hi,
This patch-set adds support to specify filtering conditions for a flush
operation. This version has entirely
On 11/04/2022 21:18, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 21:08, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/22 10:29, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch-set adds support to specify filtering conditions for a flush
>>> operation. This version has entirely different entry point (v1 had
On 11/04/2022 21:08, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>
> On 4/11/22 10:29, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch-set adds support to specify filtering conditions for a flush
>> operation. This version has entirely different entry point (v1 had
>> bridge-specific IFLA attribute, here I add new
On 4/11/22 10:29, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
Hi,
This patch-set adds support to specify filtering conditions for a flush
operation. This version has entirely different entry point (v1 had
bridge-specific IFLA attribute, here I add new RTM_FLUSHNEIGH msg and
netdev ndo_fdb_flush op) so I'll
On 11/04/2022 20:29, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch-set adds support to specify filtering conditions for a flush
> operation. This version has entirely different entry point (v1 had
> bridge-specific IFLA attribute, here I add new RTM_FLUSHNEIGH msg and
> netdev ndo_fdb_flush op) so
Hi,
This patch-set adds support to specify filtering conditions for a flush
operation. This version has entirely different entry point (v1 had
bridge-specific IFLA attribute, here I add new RTM_FLUSHNEIGH msg and
netdev ndo_fdb_flush op) so I'll give a new overview altogether.
After me and Ido
12 matches
Mail list logo
