On 2018/12/05 16:57, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
[...]
>
> Thanks for your help, using your debug patch I got the value of
> needed_headroom:
> USHRT_MAX - 64
> And tracked it down to a legacy out of tree patch of ours I then fixed.
> The patch was increasing/decreasing the needed_headroom without
On 05/12 15:57, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> On 2018/12/04 11:52, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
> > On 03/12 07:59, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2018 07:20 AM, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I ran into a panic while adding an interface to a bridge with a vxlan
> > > >
On 2018/12/04 11:52, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
> On 03/12 07:59, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/03/2018 07:20 AM, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I ran into a panic while adding an interface to a bridge with a vxlan
> > > interface already attached to it, as it seems related mtu=9000.
On 03/12 07:59, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 12/03/2018 07:20 AM, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I ran into a panic while adding an interface to a bridge with a vxlan
> > interface already attached to it, as it seems related mtu=9000.
> >
> > I get the following panic info :
> >
> > [
On 12/03/2018 07:20 AM, Nicolas Belouin wrote:
> Hi,
> I ran into a panic while adding an interface to a bridge with a vxlan
> interface already attached to it, as it seems related mtu=9000.
>
> I get the following panic info :
>
> [ 2482.419893] br100: port 2(vif1.1) entered blocking state
>
