[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEP_g=9D5CEUG7AVxoyW6Q0NUEaQ+vE3g+SPdU677Y+s65JRiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:26:14 -0700
From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
greearb@...delatech.com, mirqus@...il.com,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, bruce.w.allan@...el.com,
carolyn.wyborny@...el.com, donald.c.skidmore@...el.com,
gregory.v.rose@...el.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
john.ronciak@...el.com, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6 18/47] igbvf: do vlan cleanup
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com> wrote:
> @@ -1170,19 +1170,28 @@ static void igbvf_set_rlpml(struct igbvf_adapter *adapter)
> int max_frame_size = adapter->max_frame_size;
> struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
>
> - if (adapter->vlgrp)
> + if (adapter->netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX)
> max_frame_size += VLAN_TAG_SIZE;
This is unconditionally true, right? NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_RX never gets
toggled here. In any case, I think we should be able to handle vlan
tagged packets even if stripping isn't enabled.
The Intel guys have expressed some concerns in the past about the MTU
in relation to the igb driver (the PF version) with vlan tags. I'm
not quite sure what about this NIC is different from others in the
handling of MTU and vlans but here's one such thread:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/82675/
--
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