From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [VLAN]: translate IF_OPER_DORMANT to netif_dormant_on() Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:17:00 -0700 Message-ID: <44AC2C4C.9060001@candelatech.com> References: <200603211829.k2LITMNR029085@hera.kernel.org> <44AA3DD3.1090106@trash.net> <200607052057.05526.stefan@loplof.de> <44AC2857.5030706@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Rompf , Linux Netdev List Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:63953 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964989AbWGEVRN (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:17:13 -0400 To: Patrick McHardy In-Reply-To: <44AC2857.5030706@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > Stefan Rompf wrote: > >>Am Dienstag 04 Juli 2006 12:07 schrieb Patrick McHardy: >> >> >> >>>>- new_dev->state = real_dev->state & VLAN_LINK_STATE_MASK; >>>>+ new_dev->state = real_dev->state & ~(1<<__LINK_STATE_START); This change looks funky because it ignores the link state mask. >>Anyway, is it good to propagate __LINK_STATE_PRESENT then? The same situation >>here, add a VLAN while the main interface is "not present", and you are out. >>Can you try to revert the quoted part of my patch, I'll rethink which flags >>should be copied on device creation. > > > I tried both adding LINK_STATE_XOFF to the negated flags and using > VLAN_LINK_STATE_MASK, both as expected solve the problem for me. > I have to admit I was wondering about LINK_STATE_PRESENT as well > (was going to complain about that too until I noticed it is also > set in VLAN_LINK_STATE_MASK). Maybe Ben can tell us the idea behind > this? I believe this link-state logic was added by someone else. I'm not sure exactly what these flags are supposed to do, so I am not sure if they should be propagated to the VLAN or not. Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com