+Ido, Jiri,

On 11/09/2017 12:21 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:38:26AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:

quoted

On 11/09/2017 11:30 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

quoted

This means that switchdev drivers won't ever have to treat a HOST_MDB
notification any differently than a PORT_MDB notification

No, they need to treat it very differently. 

Allow me to rephrase, switchdev drivers will ignore HOST_MDB
notifications because that does not resolve to something they can do
something about.

Hi Florian

Yes, they can. In fact, if they want to support IGMP snooping on the
bridge interface, they have to. How else do they know to forward
traffic to the host?

On a switchdev fabric, you need to have at least one user-facing port be
a member of the bridge, and when the switchdev driver configures that,
it should just make the IGMP packets trap to the management interface
such that they can be delivered from the port member to the bridge
network device (br0). In that case, I don't really see why you would
need to send a HOST_MDB message to a switchdev fabric, since that should
be part of enslaving the port to the bridge in the first place and
appropriately configure the management interface to get IGMP snooping,
BDPU etc.

quoted

Fine, then add a boolean to the PORT_MDB notification that says ingress
or egress and voila, or am I missing something?

But since the semantics are so different, why not just have a
different messages?

	  Andrew

-- 
Florian