On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> 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 <ho...@verge.net.au> 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 <ho...@verge.net.au> >> >> 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. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
