From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vlan: Do not support clearing VLAN_FLAG_REORDER_HDR Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 01:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20110524.011942.393855175233217324.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20110523140048.777fb378@nehalam> <20110523.172047.1438754754048434316.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@linux-foundation.org, greearb@candelatech.com, nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com, jpirko@redhat.com, xiaosuo@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, andy@greyhouse.net, jesse@nicira.com To: ebiederm@xmission.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:43271 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751283Ab1EXFVP (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 01:21:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:54 -0700 > 3) What do we do with pf_packet and vlan hardware acceleration when > dumping not the vlan interface but the interface below the vlan > interface? > > Do we provide an option to keep the vlan header? Should that option > be on by default? > The vlan_tci in the V2 pf_packet auxdata was intended for this purpose. So no matter what variant of behavior is occurring, apps can properly reconstitute the VLAN header if they inspect the vlan_tci in the auxdata. The only thing that seems to be missing is an indication that a VLAN tag was present at all, ie. vlan_tx_tag_present(), in this manner an application could then differentiate between no VLAN header and a VLAN tag of zero.