From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicolas_de_Peslo=FCan?= Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] net: reinject arps into bonding slave instead of master Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:44:53 +0100 Message-ID: <4D793845.1060702@gmail.com> References: <20110307224338.GU11864@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <20110308071350.GA2826@psychotron.redhat.com> <20110308134247.GW11864@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <4D76A345.9040200@gmail.com> <20110309074547.GA2808@psychotron.redhat.com> <4D77938D.3080408@gmail.com> <20110309150939.GA9013@psychotron.brq.redhat.com> <4D779CA2.1050302@gmail.com> <20110309171100.GA2842@psychotron.redhat.com> <4D77FCC1.5050904@gmail.com> <20110310064829.GA3261@psychotron.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andy Gospodarek , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, kaber@trash.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:64298 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751774Ab1CJUo6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:44:58 -0500 Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so2423862wwa.1 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:44:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110310064829.GA3261@psychotron.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 10/03/2011 07:48, Jiri Pirko a =E9crit : >> But for all others setups, where there exist some net_devices before >> the "untagging" one, you would face some troubles. For example, with >> eth0+eth1 -> br0 -> br0.100, you cannot untag before entering >> __netif_receive_skb. If you do so, the bridge would receive untagged >> frame and if the frame is not for the local host, the bridge would >> forward an untagged frame while it is expected to forward a tagged >> one. Even if the bridge is in a position to know the frame *was* >> tagged, we cannot expect the bridge to do special processing to >> handle this situation. Doing so would break layering. > > I disagree. > eth0 -> untag on early __netif_receive_skb (sets up skb->vlan_tci) > ->rx_handler of bridge > ->br0 -> tag is detected by vlan_tx_tag_present() > -> reinject to __netif_receive_skb with skb->dev =3D=3D = br0.100 =46or local delivery, is should work. But if the bridge must forward the frame to another host (bridges are d= esigned for such things :-)),=20 it will have to insert the vlan header back into the frame. I don't und= erstand how it could work=20 automagically in this situation. > This way the flow would be very similar to vlan-hw-accel, am I right? So your point is to remove any 802.1Q header in any ingres frame, whate= ver the local interface=20 setup. Right? How would this support nested vlan headers? eth0 -> eth0.100 -> eth0.100.200 -> eth0.100.200.300. Who will choose eth0.100.200.300 as the last skb->dev? > I have following patch in mind. Note it's raw DRAFT. I need to take some time to review your patch. In the mean time, what is the status of the whole patch series? Can we = expect an ACK from someone? Nicolas.