[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIwnVEiGlLgD1qcG@corigine.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:11:48 +0200
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To: Cambda Zhu <cambda@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Lu Wei <luwei32@...wei.com>, "t.feng" <fengtao40@...wei.com>,
Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1] ipvlan: Fix return value of ipvlan_queue_xmit()
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 02:34:36PM +0800, Cambda Zhu wrote:
> The ipvlan_queue_xmit() should return NET_XMIT_XXX,
> but ipvlan_xmit_mode_l2/l3() returns rx_handler_result_t or NET_RX_XXX
> in some cases. The skb to forward could be treated as xmitted
> successfully.
>
> Fixes: 2ad7bf363841 ("ipvlan: Initial check-in of the IPVLAN driver.")
> Signed-off-by: Cambda Zhu <cambda@...ux.alibaba.com>
Hi Cambda Zhu,
ipvlan_rcv_frame can return two distinct values - RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED and
RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER. Is it correct to treat these both as NET_XMIT_SUCCESS
in the xmit path? If so, perhaps it would be useful to explain why
in the commit message.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists