On 2007/08/03 16:18, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > case SIOCSIFMTU: > > - if (ifr->ifr_mtu > ETHERMTU || ifr->ifr_mtu < ETHERMIN) > > + if (ifr->ifr_mtu > ETHERMTU + ETHER_VLAN_ENCAP_LEN || > > + ifr->ifr_mtu < ETHERMIN) > > error = EINVAL; > > else if (ifp->if_mtu != ifr->ifr_mtu) > > ifp->if_mtu = ifr->ifr_mtu; > > This isn't the idea. The MTU is not supposed to be set to 1504, it stays > at 1500 and if_vlan sees IFCAP_VLAN_MTU and knows that the chip actually > supports MTU + EVL_ENCAPLEN.
damn, yes you're right. Scrub this bit of the diff then. > With this change, then on several chips, if the > user expected to set 1504 and then use if_vlan on top of that (say, to pass > packets that are alreay tagged by another device) then it would fail. btw, you can stack tags (e.g. vlanYYY vlandev vlanXXX), at least on some nics.
