From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: allow vlan traffic to be received under bond Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:38:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20111013153850.GA2031@minipsycho> References: <20111010191641.2496.84845.stgit@jf-dev1-dcblab> <20111010223752.GB2373@minipsycho> <1318518274.9266.94.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: John Fastabend , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jesse@nicira.com, fubar@us.ibm.com To: Maxime Bizon Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56404 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751678Ab1JMPjJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:39:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1318518274.9266.94.camel@sakura.staff.proxad.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:04:34PM CEST, mbizon@freebox.fr wrote: > >On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 00:37 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Hmm, I must look at this again tomorrow but I have strong feeling this >> will break some some scenario including vlan-bridge-macvlan. > >unless I'm mistaken, today's behaviour: > ># vconfig add eth0 100 ># brctl addbr br0 ># brctl addif br0 eth0 > >=> eth0.100 gets no more packets, br0.100 is to be used > >after the patch won't we get the opposite ? Looks like it. The question is what is the correct behaviour... > >-- >Maxime > >