[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <EA929A9653AAE14F841771FB1DE5A136602DB8ADDA@rrsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:30:31 -0700
From: "Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>
To: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gosp@...hat.com" <gosp@...hat.com>,
"bphilips@...ell.com" <bphilips@...ell.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 08/12] ixgb: convert to new VLAN model
Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM, <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
>> +static int ixgb_set_flags(struct net_device *netdev, u32 data) +{
>> + struct ixgb_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev); +
>> bool need_reset; + int rc;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * TX vlan insertion does not work per HW design when Rx
>> stripping is + * disabled. Disable txvlan when rxvlan is
>> off. + */ + if ((data & ETH_FLAG_RXVLAN) !=
>> (netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX)) + data ^=
>> ETH_FLAG_TXVLAN;
>
> Does this really do the right thing? If the RX vlan setting is
> changed, it will do the opposite of what the user requested for TX
> vlan?
>
> So if I start with both on (the default) and turn them both off in one
> command (a valid setting), I will get RX off and TX on (an invalid
> setting).
>
> Why not:
>
> if (!(data & ETH_FLAG_RXVLAN))
> data &= ~ETH_FLAG_TXVLAN;
Ah, you're right. We missed this in testing.
I will spin another patch.
Thanks for all your help.
Emil--
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