[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160629.074006.1279014794531759883.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Cc: jarod@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com,
sassmann@...hat.com, jogreene@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net] e1000e: keep VLAN interfaces functional after rxvlan off
From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:41:31 -0700
> From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
>
> I've got a bug report about an e1000e interface, where a VLAN interface is
> set up on top of it:
>
> $ ip link add link ens1f0 name ens1f0.99 type vlan id 99
> $ ip link set ens1f0 up
> $ ip link set ens1f0.99 up
> $ ip addr add 192.168.99.92 dev ens1f0.99
>
> At this point, I can ping another host on vlan 99, ip 192.168.99.91.
> However, if I do the following:
>
> $ ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
>
> Then no traffic passes on ens1f0.99. It comes back if I toggle rxvlan on
> again. I'm not sure if this is actually intended behavior, or if there's a
> lack of software VLAN stripping fallback, or what, but things continue to
> work if I simply don't call e1000e_vlan_strip_disable() if there are
> active VLANs (plagiarizing a function from the e1000 driver here) on the
> interface.
>
> Also slipped a related-ish fix to the kerneldoc text for
> e1000e_vlan_strip_disable here...
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
> Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Applied, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists