From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] vlan_dev: VLAN 0 should be treated as "no vlan tag" (802.1p packet) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:42:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4C18B898.4000307@trash.net> References: <1276466190.14011.223.camel@localhost> <5c6d1ac43fd8ad25661ebfba57c02174@dondevamos.com> <1276534945.2074.11.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> <4C1662C3.3070708@trash.net> <1276542772.2444.13.camel@edumazet-laptop> <311b59aee7d648c6124a84b5ca06ac60@dondevamos.com> <1276679284.2632.22.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Pedro Garcia , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ben Hutchings To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:38266 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758668Ab0FPLmU (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:42:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1276679284.2632.22.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mercredi 16 juin 2010 =C3=A0 10:49 +0200, Pedro Garcia a =C3=A9cri= t : >> Here it is again. I added the modifications in http://kerneltrap.org= /mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/5/23/6277868 for HW accelerated incoming= packets (it did not apply cleanly on the last version of >> the kernel, so I applied manually). Now, if the VLAN 0 is not explic= itly created by the user, VLAN 0 packets will be treated as no VLAN (80= 2.1p packets), instead of dropping them. >> >> The patch is now for two files: vlan_core (accel) and vlan_dev (non = accel) >> >> I can not test on HW accelerated devices, so if someone can check it= I will appreciate (even though in the thread above it looked like yes)= =2E For non accel I tessted in 2.6.26. Now the patch is for >> net-next-2.6, and it compiles OK, but I a have to setup a test envir= onment to check it is still OK (should, but better to test). >> >> Signed-off-by: Pedro Garcia >> =20 > > OK, the patch itself is correct. > =20 Yes, looks fine to me as well. > Now, could you please send it again with a proper changelog ? > > In this changelog, please explain why patch is needed, and > keep lines short (< 72 chars), like the one you did in your first mai= l. > > I'll then add my Signed-off-by, since I wrote the accelerated part ;) > > Note : I wonder if another patch is needed, in case 8021q module is > _not_ loaded. We probably should accept vlan 0 frames in this case ? > =20 I agree that this would be best for consistency, but that would mean adding more special cases to __netif_receive_skb().