From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Bizon Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: allow vlan traffic to be received under bond Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:48:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1318520913.9266.102.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> References: <20111010191641.2496.84845.stgit@jf-dev1-dcblab> <20111010223752.GB2373@minipsycho> <1318518274.9266.94.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> <20111013153850.GA2031@minipsycho> Reply-To: mbizon@freebox.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: John Fastabend , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jesse@nicira.com, fubar@us.ibm.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from bobafett.staff.proxad.net ([213.228.1.121]:49141 "EHLO bobafett.staff.proxad.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755482Ab1JMPse (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:48:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20111013153850.GA2031@minipsycho> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 17:38 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Looks like it. The question is what is the correct behaviour... since we don't want to break existing setup I would say the current one but I must admit I'm not a big fan of it. -- Maxime