On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
[off-list ref] wrote:
On 03/16/2016 03:45 PM, Xin Long wrote:
quoted
do you think it''s redundant if we add a notification in bridge
fdb_flush to keep
consistence with port fdb_flush?
Hmm, technically we're doing this via a sysfs option and the netlink fdb flush
one will generate a notification, so I'd say let's make them all consistent and
make them all generate a notification, and also making the bridge fdb_flush use
the bridge_store_parm should be trivial.
okay, I will also make this one use bridge_store_parm.
Thanks