[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKW4uUyPdQ9hXeyjnC+5VS7zDaw+3sxy53HwOv2AxEZ7tngT=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:12:31 +0900
From: Kangmin Park <l4stpr0gr4m@...il.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
Cc: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: bridge: replace __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag with skb_vlan_push
2021년 8월 23일 (월) 오후 6:00, Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>님이 작성:
>
> On 23/08/2021 09:19, Kangmin Park wrote:
>
> This changes behaviour though, I don't like changing code just for the sake of it.
> Perhaps the author had a reason to use hwaccel_put_tag instead. Before we would
> just put hwaccel tag, now if there already is hwaccel tag we'll push it inside
> the skb and then push the new tag in hwaccel. In fact I think you can even trigger
> the warning inside skb_vlan_push, so:
>
> Nacked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
>
>
Thanks for the review. I got it.
Then, how about cleanup by changing return type of
br_handle_ingress_vlan_tunnel()?
This function is only referenced in br_handle_frame(), and goto drop
when it return
non-zero. But, the ingress function always return 0, there is no
meaning for now.
If you think the cleanup is worth it, I'll send you a v2 patch.
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists