[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B142989.6070207@trash.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:22:33 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, fubar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] bonding: allow arp_ip_targets to be on a
separate vlan from bond device
Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> diff --git a/net/8021q/vlan_core.c b/net/8021q/vlan_core.c
> index e75a2f3..8d8a778 100644
> --- a/net/8021q/vlan_core.c
> +++ b/net/8021q/vlan_core.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ int __vlan_hwaccel_rx(struct sk_buff *skb, struct vlan_group *grp,
> if (skb_bond_should_drop(skb))
> goto drop;
>
> + skb->skb_iif = skb->dev->ifindex;
> __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(skb, vlan_tci);
> skb->dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK);
>
> @@ -85,6 +86,7 @@ vlan_gro_common(struct napi_struct *napi, struct vlan_group *grp,
> if (skb_bond_should_drop(skb))
> goto drop;
>
> + skb->skb_iif = skb->dev->ifindex;
> __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(skb, vlan_tci);
> skb->dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK);
>
How about pulling the skb->iif assignment in netif_receive_skb() up
before the vlan_hwaccel_do_receive() call instead? I'd actually call
this a bug fix since hardware accelerated devices should not differ
from non-accelerated devices in their iif value.
--
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