On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:35:53PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:45:33PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > The STT protocol allows a VLAN TCI to be passed as part of the > >> > STT header. It seems appropriate to pass this TCI to ovs_tnl_rcv() > >> > and for other tunneling protocols to pass 0 to retain their existing > >> > behaviour. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > >> > >> Did you see my previous comment about pushing down the call to > >> vlan_set_tci() into the protocol handlers? I just noticed that you > >> didn't respond to it before. > > > > Sorry, I appologise for that. I had read it but failed to respond. > > > > Is the idea that each implementation of update_header will > > call vlan_set_tci() ? If so, it might be nice to call vlan_set_tci(skb, 0) > > before calling update_header so that tunnelling protocols that > > are VLAN agnostic can just continue being ignorant. > > I'm not sure that I understand. update_header() is called on transmit > but the functions in this patch are for receive. On the transmit side > we can't wipe out the vlan before calling update_header because STT > needs that information to store in its header.
Sorry, my mistake. I'll send a patch to move calling vlan_set_tci(skb, 0) for the existing tunneling protocols. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
