[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DDBD264.5030709@candelatech.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 08:44:36 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: ebiederm@...ssion.com, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com, jpirko@...hat.com, xiaosuo@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, jesse@...ira.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vlan: Do not support clearing VLAN_FLAG_REORDER_HDR
On 05/23/2011 10:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:05:54 -0700
>
>> 3) What do we do with pf_packet and vlan hardware acceleration when
>> dumping not the vlan interface but the interface below the vlan
>> interface?
>>
>> Do we provide an option to keep the vlan header? Should that option
>> be on by default?
>>
>
> The vlan_tci in the V2 pf_packet auxdata was intended for this
> purpose.
>
> So no matter what variant of behavior is occurring, apps can properly
> reconstitute the VLAN header if they inspect the vlan_tci in the
> auxdata.
When using pf-packet on eth0, with no VLAN devices existing, would
you still be putting the VLAN tags in auxdata, or would the tags be
inline in the skb?
> The only thing that seems to be missing is an indication that a VLAN
> tag was present at all, ie. vlan_tx_tag_present(), in this manner an
> application could then differentiate between no VLAN header and a VLAN
> tag of zero.
For nested VLANs, the outside VLAN data is in the auxdata, and the rest
is inline in the packet?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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