From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Kirsher Subject: Re: e100 + VLANs? Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:34:40 -0700 Message-ID: <4E9097C0.2030307@gmail.com> References: <4E90212D.8030009@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <1318091046.5276.22.camel@edumazet-laptop> Reply-To: jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig0086C36121EB9072E10DCB87" Cc: Michael Tokarev , netdev To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:28236 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753243Ab1JHSek (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Oct 2011 14:34:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1318091046.5276.22.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig0086C36121EB9072E10DCB87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/08/2011 09:24 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le samedi 08 octobre 2011 =C3=A0 14:08 +0400, Michael Tokarev a =C3=A9c= rit : >> > Yesterday I tried to use 802.1Q VLAN tagging with an (oldish) >> > e100-driven network card, identified by lspci like this: >> >=20 >> > 00:12.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557/8/9/0/1 Ethern= et Pro 100 (rev 02) >> >=20 >> > Just to discover that it does not quite work: packets of >> > size 1497+ bytes gets lost. >> >=20 >> > This appears to be a classical problems in this case - >> > something forgot to allocate extra 4 bytes for the >> > packets. >> >=20 >> > There's at least one bugreport from 2008 (!) about this >> > very issue: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3D2719 >> > which is still open. >> >=20 >> > The kernel I tried this on was 2.6.32, I checked git log >> > for drivers/net/e100.c - there was no changes up to >> > current version which may be related to this issue. >> >=20 >> > The question: is this a driver problem or hardware? If >> > it's the driver, can it be fixed? And if it's hardware, >> > can the driver notify the user somehow - like, by refusing >> > to enable VLAN (sub)devices maybe? >> >=20 >> > Yesterday it was actually a bit more complicated for me, >> > since the card in question was used to connect to our >> > ISP, and they use fixed MAC address per port, so I had >> > to find another NIC which is a) able to work with VLAN >> > tags properly, and b) is able to change its mac address. >> > Lucky I had a VIA RhineIII which does both :) >> >=20 > Since you have two cards (and probably two machines), maybe you could > try to track if the problem is a bad transmit or a bad receive ? > > tcpdump on both machines, and ping -s 2000 from both sides... > > e100 driver seems VLAN enabled at a first glance. Eric is correct, that e100 does support VLANs. In addition to Eric's suggestion, can you also provide all the output of lspci -vvv for the network card? --------------enig0086C36121EB9072E10DCB87 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOkJfAAAoJEOVv75VaS+3OBDwP/R7E4EDaYSxeVkiBFkGCmDw1 krPJZv+ZFzk0tXuQxte21TBjwm9SBrK3g9eeNkJDHISB7HCm6cNaoOqxsulMApui M0C0exJBW30VQq81jfxcGNGYUQLTkrKs0mj5vkKK8casRhe5lQay+gMuxuC3PnFI IRkWsyMlCAvcDrDIFLEMKMOpVUwEkLFzMUR/FPeYFd1Gukf2nzPeMnrzC8LKKKgQ DXp8lQmqWwvnMki7auWh+eaCgc+jdmywTApadf5iOAsQuQ11H0kjw8nALGU8iJn5 8Ivi5imer7+QuPDP7qCjKfT2JwzJx3LYL62/3sLIexzN2p+ow+/tltENvBhwEST2 w2c1DzBiVj2dY5eLPcTPI/2OJBR8eW6wC/aDrZ6Knevt0XC/UnNyUFAHwDImS48C Q6Q6GQiTTQUVhA3bh3yLH6YlRbQP9+jPnS8y9D8Zoats9UwK6i/PK/NrlRJcKVBt BYWOJVIfFQWC2lRP+TL8i09klJ58YUtTuzgMvCSsq9uZ8iIVHV4k6xfBmK975Ocg IqZmL9+wDEJk74gZXujwTRWpx3LV6DQyt064cG9gKCaKo+bMixkZA29oLciczY7a QA0iiAqFtzrD1u1XZASNBBgg+vff0gYV5k5n/uIYElIxDlJKsgCC6JfNBgX+0P2d OuhcIpYlnQ9DNvUVADeL =qo1B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig0086C36121EB9072E10DCB87--