Commit 78ecc890 authored by Vladimir Oltean's avatar Vladimir Oltean Committed by David S. Miller

net: say "local" instead of "static" addresses in ndo_dflt_fdb_{add,del}

"Static" is a loaded word, and probably not what the author meant when
the code was written.

In particular, this looks weird:
$ bridge fdb add dev swp0 00:01:02:03:04:05 local        # totally fine, but
$ bridge fdb add dev swp0 00:01:02:03:04:05 static
[ 2020.708298] swp0: FDB only supports static addresses  # hmm what?

By looking at the implementation which uses dev_uc_add/dev_uc_del it is
absolutely clear that only local addresses are supported, and the proper
Network Unreachability Detection state is being used for this purpose
(user space indeed sets NUD_PERMANENT when local addresses are meant).
So it is just the message that is wrong, fix it.
Signed-off-by: default avatarVladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent 23ac0b42
......@@ -3947,7 +3947,7 @@ int ndo_dflt_fdb_add(struct ndmsg *ndm,
* implement its own handler for this.
*/
if (ndm->ndm_state && !(ndm->ndm_state & NUD_PERMANENT)) {
netdev_info(dev, "FDB only supports static addresses\n");
netdev_info(dev, "default FDB implementation only supports local addresses\n");
return err;
}
......@@ -4086,7 +4086,7 @@ int ndo_dflt_fdb_del(struct ndmsg *ndm,
* implement its own handler for this.
*/
if (!(ndm->ndm_state & NUD_PERMANENT)) {
netdev_info(dev, "FDB only supports static addresses\n");
netdev_info(dev, "default FDB implementation only supports local addresses\n");
return err;
}
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment