[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <485631FF.7040509@trash.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:27:27 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
NETDEV <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] netdevice: order of synchronization of IFF_PROMISC
and IFF_ALLMULTI
Wang Chen wrote:
> IFF_PROMISC should be set before IFF_ALLMULTI.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> net/8021q/vlan_dev.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c b/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
> index 5d055c2..14742e3 100644
> --- a/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
> +++ b/net/8021q/vlan_dev.c
> @@ -547,10 +547,14 @@ static int vlan_dev_open(struct net_device *dev)
> }
> memcpy(vlan->real_dev_addr, real_dev->dev_addr, ETH_ALEN);
>
> - if (dev->flags & IFF_ALLMULTI)
> - dev_set_allmulti(real_dev, 1);
> + /* NOTE: order of synchronization of IFF_PROMISC and IFF_ALLMULTI
> + is important. Some (broken) drivers set IFF_PROMISC, when
> + IFF_ALLMULTI is requested not asking us and not reporting.
> + */
> if (dev->flags & IFF_PROMISC)
> dev_set_promiscuity(real_dev, 1);
> + if (dev->flags & IFF_ALLMULTI)
> + dev_set_allmulti(real_dev, 1);
What exactly is the problem here? The VLAN code is obviously not
one of the broken drivers, so why should it care what other drivers
do?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists