From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/12] Add basic VLAN support to bridges Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:19:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20121219171901.GA1620@minipsycho.orion> References: <1355857263-31197-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <20121218223244.GC1690@minipsycho.orion> <50D0F23D.4020508@redhat.com> <20121219082727.GB1637@minipsycho.orion> <20121219170431.GA6975@casper.infradead.org> <50D1F551.6010301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Graf , netdev@vger.kernel.org, shemminger@vyatta.com, davem@davemloft.net, or.gerlitz@gmail.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, mst@redhat.com To: Vlad Yasevich Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f181.google.com ([209.85.215.181]:37252 "EHLO mail-ea0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753072Ab2LSRTH (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:19:07 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k14so943182eaa.40 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:19:05 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50D1F551.6010301@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 06:11:45PM CET, vyasevic@redhat.com wrote: >On 12/19/2012 12:04 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: >>On 12/19/12 at 09:27am, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:46:21PM CET, vyasevic@redhat.com wrote: >>>>On 12/18/2012 05:32 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I see that this patchset replicates a lot of code which is already >>>>>present in net/8021q/ or include/linux/if_vlan.h. I think it would >>>>>be nice to move this code into some "common" place, wouldn't it? >>>>> >>>> >>>>The only replication that I am aware of is in br_vlan_untag(). I >>>>thought about pulling that piece out, but I think there is a reason >>>>why it's not available when 801q support isn't turned on. I noted that >>>>openvswitch implemented its own vlan header manipulation functions as well. >>> >>>openvswitch should use the "common" code as well. >> >>I was just about to mention this. This overlaps with openvswitch >>in functionality which I have absoluetely no objections against >>but code reuse should come to focus in order to avoid having to >>fix bugs twice. >> > >Could we consolidate the code after this is accepted and all the parties >can agree on the consolidation? I'd really like to keep this series >as minimally invasive as possible. That sounds good to me. > >Thanks >-vlad