On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:25:01PM +0800, Zhenlei Huang wrote: > > > > On Aug 28, 2023, at 3:54 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 09:51:38AM +0800, Zhenlei Huang wrote: > >> Hi Konstantin, > >> > >> > >> I was just about going to open a PR for https://reviews.freebsd.org/D39536 > >> and > >> realized I might made wrong assumption. > >> > >> I thought IFNET_PCP_NONE is something like IEEE8021Q_PCP_BE but I second > >> why not > >> use IEEE8021Q_PCP_BE but a new const IFNET_PCP_NONE. > > I meant > > ``` > int > ether_output_frame(struct ifnet *ifp, struct mbuf *m) > { > uint8_t pcp; > > pcp = ifp->if_pcp; > if (pcp != 0 /* IEEE8021Q_PCP_BE */ && ifp->if_type != IFT_L2VLAN && > !ether_set_pcp(&m, ifp, pcp)) > return (0); > > ... This is wrong. PCP_BE is just one of the priorities, that should allowed to be specified in the 802.1q pseudo-vlan header.
> > } > ``` > > >> > >> So despite its naming IFNET_PCP_NONE, is it actually a flag to let > >> specific interface > >> completely bypass (disable) PCP processing? > >> > >> The const IFNET_PCP_NONE is defined in sys/net/if.h with > >> ``` > >> #define IFNET_PCP_NONE 0xff /* PCP disabled */ > >> ``` > > I fail to understand your question. > > > > IFNET_PCP_NONE is a value that means that no 802.1q prio is inserted into > > the packet. Otherwise, non-vlan traffic is tagged with the priority. > > Think about the following case: > > 1. Set interface's PCP to IFNET_PCP_NONE, application / firewall provide > per-flow PCP, should > the traffic be tagged with the priority ? Yes, it should, but only for packets from the specified flows. > > > > > > IEEE8021Q_PCP_BE is a name of one of the priorities, it seems from my > > code reading. > > > Best regards, > Zhenlei >
