From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] [E1000]: [VLAN] Turn off the HW vlan filter if promisc Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:48:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4808DEE3.4070203@intel.com> References: <20080411135851.GD8137@tp64> <4807C03E.7060705@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kaber@trash.net, jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Joonwoo Park Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:50379 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758750AbYDRRtW (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:49:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Joonwoo Park wrote: > 2008/4/18, Kok, Auke : >> My logistical objection against this patch is that it adjusts only one/two drivers >> to do something, but I don't see anything consistently in all the drivers at all >> that suggest that this is the right thing to do at all. Either a mandate or >> something suggesting that all drivers that do vlan filtering *should* do something >> specific in promiscuous mode. > > It's true. We need to fix all the netdev which is VLAN_HW_FILTER capable IMHO. > However I couldn't make patches for all of them since I don't have those HW :( sigh, we really should not make e1000(e) guinea pigs - especially at this time. is there someone who can actually test this for us? I'd be a lot happier if I had some confidence that people who actually do use promisc/vlans give me a thumbs up. Auke