This fixes my issue. Thanks.
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 02:09, you wrote:
> From: Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:01:35 -0700
>
> > In this case (bond0.555 above bond0 above eth0,eth1,etc),
> > skb_bond doesn't suppress duplicates because skb_bond is called with the
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, David Miller wrote:
From: Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:01:35 -0700
In this case (bond0.555 above bond0 above eth0,eth1,etc),
skb_bond doesn't suppress duplicates because skb_bond is called with the
skb->dev set to the bond0.555 dev,
From: Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:18:13 -0700
> I have successfully reproduced the problem and subsequently
> validated this patch against 2.6.17.6. I'm building netdev-2.6#upstream
> right now, but I expect it will work as well (and will report back only
> if
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Ok, since __vlan_hwaccel_rx() bypasses the netif_receive_skb()
>that would normally occur, we have to duplicate the bonding
>drop checks.
>
>The submitted patch put skb_bond() into if_vlan.h which is
>definitely the wrong thing to do. This is a generi
From: Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:01:35 -0700
> In this case (bond0.555 above bond0 above eth0,eth1,etc),
> skb_bond doesn't suppress duplicates because skb_bond is called with the
> skb->dev set to the bond0.555 dev, not the ethX dev. Non-accelerated
> VLAN d
From: Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:16:36 +0200
> On Friday 11 August 2006 08:45, you wrote:
> > From: Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:18:23 +0200 (CEST)
> >
> > > OK, this patch really solves the bug from my report. Are there
BTW, I'll be honest with you, by continuing to bug me about this, it
makes me want to look at this issue less, not more.
Just be patient ok?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel
On Friday 11 August 2006 08:45, you wrote:
> From: Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:18:23 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > OK, this patch really solves the bug from my report. Are there any
> > chances for similar fix in the net-2.6.19.git?
>
> I'm still thinking about this patch
On Friday 11 August 2006 08:45, David Miller wrote:
> From: Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:18:23 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > OK, this patch really solves the bug from my report. Are there any
> > chances for similar fix in the net-2.6.19.git?
>
> I'm still thinking about t
From: Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:50:44 +0200
> What can I do to get you to apply this then ? This patch is about
> fixing a bug which is bothering me a lot.
You need to be patient while I review the problem.
Nothing you say will allow my brain to operate an
From: Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:18:23 +0200 (CEST)
> OK, this patch really solves the bug from my report. Are there any chances
> for similar fix in the net-2.6.19.git?
I'm still thinking about this patch and what various people have
explained about the situ
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, David Miller wrote:
Finally, I'm still a little stumped about why this change is necessary
still, to be honest.
If I understand it correctly this patch fixes the "[PATCH] bonding: suppress
duplicate packets" patch:
http:
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The same struct vlan_group is assigned to all slave devices and so the only
>> vlan subinterfaces that exist in this case are the bond.
>> subinterfaces, and the vlan path for both slaves will assign the
>> bond. interface to skb->dev, thereby erasing
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 22:58, you wrote:
> From: Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:15:40 +0200
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation.
>
> > If you bond 2 vlan subinterfaces, the patch is not necessary at all. In
> > that case also the source device will be c
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, David Miller wrote:
Finally, I'm still a little stumped about why this change is necessary
still, to be honest.
If I understand it correctly this patch fixes the "[PATCH] bonding:
suppress duplicate packets" patch:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds
From: Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:15:40 +0200
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
> If you bond 2 vlan subinterfaces, the patch is not necessary at all. In that
> case also the source device will be changed from eth0. to bond. So
> that's correct behavior
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 19:21, you wrote:
> John W. Linville wrote:
> >>>I'm just not sure that cleverness is worth the headache, especially
> >>>since the most clever things usually only work by accident...
> >>
> >>Or, work by solid, modular design and small tweaks!
> >
> > Point taken. But st
Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically, my point is that
> if VLANs are true devices, they will just work with all of the
> user-space protocols
> and they will easily handle abstractions such as bridges, (multiple)
> IP addresses, MAC addresses,
> net-filter, and all the rest.
I thi
John W. Linville wrote:
I'm just not sure that cleverness is worth the headache, especially
since the most clever things usually only work by accident...
Or, work by solid, modular design and small tweaks!
Point taken. But stashing little hacks in the networking core for
specific virtual d
John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:10:06AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
Agreed. I have some very strong opinions on this subject that i could
share with you if you want. For example, IMO, I think it would be a lot
reasonable to assume that a VLAN or VLANS
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:17:15AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> John W. Linville wrote:
> Well, if it makes you feel better, I can't see a good way to do
> vlans-over-vlans cleanly, backwards compatibly, and functional with
> bridging, etc. I would not plan to add such a feature to the kernel
> unl
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:10:06AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >Agreed. I have some very strong opinions on this subject that i could
> >share with you if you want. For example, IMO, I think it would be a lot
> >reasonable to assume that a VLAN or VLANS are attributes of a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:33:34AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-08 at 08:08 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > And, I think that a
> > reconsideration of all three functions as a group could lead to
> > better/cleaner functionality with easier support for extension (e.g.
> > 80
John W. Linville wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:39:08PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 08:30 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
Do we hold the view that our L2 code is on par with the rest of
our code? Is there an appetite for a clean-up? Or is it just me?
If you m
Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-08 at 08:08 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
[..]
There is no doubt that we need to be able to do all three (vlan,
bridge, bond) at once. I'm just not convinced we need to support
stacking them in every conceivable order.
In theory there should be no
On Tue, 2006-01-08 at 08:08 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
[..]
> There is no doubt that we need to be able to do all three (vlan,
> bridge, bond) at once. I'm just not convinced we need to support
> stacking them in every conceivable order.
In theory there should be no issues stacking netdevic
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:39:08PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 08:30 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > Do we hold the view that our L2 code is on par with the rest of
> > our code? Is there an appetite for a clean-up? Or is it just me?
> >
> >
> >
> > If you made i
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 08:30 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:15:40AM +0200, Christophe Devriese wrote:
>
> > If you bond 2 vlan subinterfaces, the patch is not necessary at all. In
> > that
> > case also the source device will be changed from eth0. to bond. So
> > tha
On Monday 31 July 2006 14:30, you wrote:
> (This is not directed at Christophe, or anyone in particular...)
>
>
>
> Am I the only one that thinks that our handling of LAN L2 stuff
> is at best a little "too" flexible (and at worst a collection of
> nasty hacks)?
>
> I mean, do we really need both
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:15:40AM +0200, Christophe Devriese wrote:
> If you bond 2 vlan subinterfaces, the patch is not necessary at all. In that
> case also the source device will be changed from eth0. to bond. So
> that's correct behavior no ?
>
> In the second case, you create vlan subifs
On Monday 31 July 2006 05:50, you wrote:
> From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:55:17 -0700
>
> > The skb_bond method assigns skb->dev when it does the 'keep',
> > but the VLAN code immediately over-writes the skb->dev when
> > searching for the vlan device.
> >
> > What
From: Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:55:17 -0700
> The skb_bond method assigns skb->dev when it does the 'keep',
> but the VLAN code immediately over-writes the skb->dev when
> searching for the vlan device.
>
> What is the purpose of assinging skb->dev to the master dev
David Miller wrote:
From: Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:58:59 +0200
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:08:49PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Christophe Devriese wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
Christophe Devriese wrote:
I basi
From: Christophe Devriese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:58:59 +0200
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:08:49PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> > Christophe Devriese wrote:
> > >On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> > >
> > >>Christophe Devriese wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I b
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:08:49PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Christophe Devriese wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> >
> >>Christophe Devriese wrote:
> >>
> >>>I basically move the skb_bond method into if_bonding.h, include that file
> >>>in if_vlan ( and call i
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:55:17PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> Christophe Devriese wrote:
> >I basically move the skb_bond method into if_bonding.h, include that file
> >in if_vlan ( and call it from the vlan forwarding path, and the netif_rx
> >routine ).
> >
> >Somehow this patch is very incomple
Christophe Devriese wrote:
I basically move the skb_bond method into if_bonding.h, include that file
in if_vlan ( and call it from the vlan forwarding path, and the netif_rx
routine ).
Somehow this patch is very incomplete. Let me try again.
The patch looks sane this time.
The skb_bond meth
I basically move the skb_bond method into if_bonding.h, include that file
in if_vlan ( and call it from the vlan forwarding path, and the netif_rx
routine ).
Somehow this patch is very incomplete. Let me try again.
sorry for the trouble. (I'm new at this)
Regards,
Christophe
> Christophe Dev
This patch by itself does nothing useful, other than remove a method.
If we assume you did the patch backwards, and wanted to add the method
instead, then where is this method ever called?
Ben
Christophe Devriese wrote:
diff -rU3 linux-2.6.17.7/net/core/dev.c linux-2.6.17.7-wapper/net/core/de
diff -rU3 linux-2.6.17.7/net/core/dev.c linux-2.6.17.7-wapper/net/core/dev.c
--- linux-2.6.17.7/net/core/dev.c 2006-07-25 05:36:01.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.17.7-wapper/net/core/dev.c2006-07-27 20:16:36.0
+0200
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
40 matches
Mail list logo
