From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Kirsher Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] e1000e: keep vlan interfaces functional after rxvlan off Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:39:59 -0700 Message-ID: <1463607599.2713.70.camel@intel.com> References: <1463511831-13684-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-tJ5k+bC+fPXu7NuikaZw" Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarod Wilson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Raanan Avargil Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1463511831-13684-1-git-send-email-jarod@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --=-tJ5k+bC+fPXu7NuikaZw Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 15:03 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > I've got a bug report about an e1000e interface, where a vlan interface > is > set up on top of it: >=20 > $ ip link add link ens1f0 name ens1f0.99 type vlan id 99 > $ ip link set ens1f0 up > $ ip link set ens1f0.99 up > $ ip addr add 192.168.99.92 dev ens1f0.99 >=20 > At this point, I can ping another host on vlan 99, ip 192.168.99.91. > However, if I do the following: >=20 > $ ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off >=20 > Then no traffic passes on ens1f0.99. It comes back if I toggle rxvlan on > again. I'm not sure if this is actually intended behavior, or if there's > a > lack of software vlan stripping fallback, or what, but things continue to > work if I simply don't call e1000e_vlan_strip_disable() if there are > active vlans (plagiarizing a function from the e1000 driver here) on the > interface. >=20 > Also slipped a related-ish fix to the kerneldoc text for > e1000e_vlan_strip_disable here... >=20 > CC: Jeff Kirsher > CC: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson > --- > =C2=A0drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > =C2=A01 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Raanan, please review this patch. =C2=A0Even though it is an RFC I will be adding it to my queue for testing. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/623238/ --=-tJ5k+bC+fPXu7NuikaZw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCgAGBQJXPOEwAAoJEOVv75VaS+3OFKAQAJ1nSQ9EUI9U7fFpvJWD6i6z zjsI8d2EGbYOZw6iP0ccPgYrwP1UCxfdNHW2+tZqYOa5Mcq7jeCckJprqcAiftpm t5VQQv+B6xXoNX4E1F57fInOsclkbq4x2+6cRQAESIr2JgP7S9xLo60mT70BjTJr Qf42FP2oJXFjTkv/BouW4aAOG+R6xoIKq6s+pIfUeWPQeHxtjHJwLX1pLbbOj09s jAUvXX6EM+Fwgmc6cLVDig0nWZBEZdieyMnlFeTNTPPtvt1QPwxpOX+efqRAjxEZ 0ozHPlhqzL8aYuml/CL7bv4kPhloKrfgjD1luJlNCHA5MBQR6bt3+QcT+aCsOa4p OOunIYTsy0pGCgHVt0B4JJab1WbeogojEJzSZcGd4k/Pi6YQlUmJrhhbCTs+GMLG v1sRRhJ624sU+G57NRokdSufiUmpI507C36/YCeZ+PsYrUImTtBgrxRRUny7en5j Vgk6I1J5m/oIU7PzZ0tgk2kiJ2rQkJJ53P5k6j6x9ha7kqDZXnYfOlFtO2rmBic4 S7Mdrh+LMUYvUqRnaCj4YQII/yscfVbYOnDDtf/+pA3/H1lAvnFiuTH2iRgeGBr3 jcN+b2EYsc7d1tl3IHWeBPAOoNeqg8pUs4ZLW/4OKMMAC0pv/+fYNl+OD7TbKPPg 3HXaKECYCNQyfhIYEKxx =g7yc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-tJ5k+bC+fPXu7NuikaZw--