> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jeff Kirsher > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:40 PM > To: Jarod Wilson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > Avargil, Raanan <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH net] e1000e: keep vlan interfaces > functional after rxvlan off > > On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 15:03 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > 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... > > > > CC: Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]> > > CC: [email protected] > > CC: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Raanan, please review this patch. Even though it is an RFC I will be > adding it to my queue for testing. > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/623238/
Yup, without this patch disabling rxvlan offload does indeed break vlan connectivity and with the patch I can disable and re-enable rxvlan offloads as much as I care to. It also makes it through my regression tests without problems. Tested-by: Aaron Brown <[email protected]> This is from functional - does it work - testing perspective so review is probably still in order.
