[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YDcD/wEnoSleaN7v@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 02:57:19 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 11/12] Documentation: networking: switchdev:
clarify device driver behavior
> +devices and unsolicited multicast must be filtered as early as possible into
> +the hardware.
'into' sounds wrong here. Probably just 'in'.
> +- with VLAN filtering turned off: the bridge is strictly VLAN unaware and its
> + data path will only process untagged Ethernet frames. Frames ingressing the
> + device with a VID that is not programmed into the bridge/switch's VLAN table
> + must be forwarded and may be processed using a VLAN device (see below).
I must be missing something, because these two sentence seems to
contradict each other?
> +Finally, even when VLAN filtering in the bridge is turned off, the underlying
> +switch hardware and driver may still configured itself in a VLAN-aware mode
configure.
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists