[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1561034247.953427.1433295590494.JavaMail.zimbra@savoirfairelinux.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, David <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Jérome Oufella
<jerome.oufella@...oirfairelinux.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel <kernel@...oirfairelinux.com>,
Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for VTU ops
Guenter,
On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:50 AM, Guenter Roeck linux@...ck-us.net wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 06:27 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
>> + /* Bringing an interface up adds it to the VLAN 0. Ignore this. */
>> + if (!vid)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> Me puzzled ;-). I brought this and the fid question up before.
> No idea if my e-mail got lost or what happened.
>
> Can you explain why we don't need a configuration for vlan 0 ?
Sorry for late reply. Initially, when issuing "ip link set up dev swp0",
ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid was called to add the interface in the VLAN 0.
2 things happen here:
* this is inconsistent with the "bridge vlan" output which doesn't seem to
know about a VID 0;
* VID 0 seems special for this switch: if an ingressing frame has VID 0, the
tagged port will override the VID bits with the port default VID at egress.
Thanks,
-v
--
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