From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: 2.6.37 regression: adding main interface to a bridge breaks vlan interface RX Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:00:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1295280044.6264.5.camel@bwh-desktop> References: <4D32FC1C.3010905@simon.arlott.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev , Linux Kernel Mailing List , jesse@nicira.com, Herbert Xu To: Simon Arlott Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D32FC1C.3010905@simon.arlott.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 14:09 +0000, Simon Arlott wrote: > [ 1.666706] forcedeth 0000:00:08.0: ifname eth0, PHY OUI 0x5043 @ 16, addr 00:e0:81:4d:2b:ec > [ 1.666767] forcedeth 0000:00:08.0: highdma csum vlan pwrctl mgmt gbit lnktim msi desc-v3 > > I have eth0 and eth0.3840 which works until I add eth0 to a bridge. > While eth0 is in a bridge (the bridge device is up), eth0.3840 is unable > to receive packets. Using tcpdump on eth0 shows the packets being > received with a VLAN tag but they don't appear on eth0.3840. They appear > with the VLAN tag on the bridge interface. [...] This means the behaviour is now consistent, whether or not hardware VLAN tag stripping is enabled. (I previously pointed out the inconsistent behaviour in .) I would consider this an improvement. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.