On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 07:35:26AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Am 04.04.21 um 02:02 schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 07:14:56PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> >> Am 03.04.21 um 16:49 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> @@ -31,6 +96,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *ar9331_tag_xmit(struct
Am 04.04.21 um 02:02 schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 07:14:56PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> Am 03.04.21 um 16:49 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
@@ -31,6 +96,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *ar9331_tag_xmit(struct sk_buff
*skb,
__le16 *phdr;
u16 hdr;
+
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 07:14:56PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Am 03.04.21 um 16:49 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> >> @@ -31,6 +96,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *ar9331_tag_xmit(struct sk_buff
> >> *skb,
> >>__le16 *phdr;
> >>u16 hdr;
> >>
> >> + if (dp->stp_state == BR_STATE_BLOCKING) {
> >> +
Am 03.04.21 um 16:49 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
>> @@ -31,6 +96,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *ar9331_tag_xmit(struct sk_buff
>> *skb,
>> __le16 *phdr;
>> u16 hdr;
>>
>> +if (dp->stp_state == BR_STATE_BLOCKING) {
>> +/* TODO: should we reflect it in the stats? */
>> +
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:22:24PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Off-topic question, this patch set stops to work after rebasing against
> latest netdev. I get following warning:
> ip l s lan0 master test
> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argumen
>
> Are there some API changes?
Yes, it's likely that
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 04:46:06PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 03:26:36PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 04:03:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > Hi Oleksij,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> >
> @@ -31,6 +96,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *ar9331_tag_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
> __le16 *phdr;
> u16 hdr;
>
> + if (dp->stp_state == BR_STATE_BLOCKING) {
> + /* TODO: should we reflect it in the stats? */
> + netdev_warn_once(dev, "%s:%i dropping
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 03:26:36PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 04:03:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Hi Oleksij,
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > The ar9331 switch is not forwarding IGMP and MLD packets if IGMP
> > >
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 04:03:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Oleksij,
>
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > The ar9331 switch is not forwarding IGMP and MLD packets if IGMP
> > snooping is enabled. This patch is trying to mimic the HW heuristic to take
>
Hi Oleksij,
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> The ar9331 switch is not forwarding IGMP and MLD packets if IGMP
> snooping is enabled. This patch is trying to mimic the HW heuristic to take
> same decisions as this switch would do to be able to tell the linux
>
The ar9331 switch is not forwarding IGMP and MLD packets if IGMP
snooping is enabled. This patch is trying to mimic the HW heuristic to take
same decisions as this switch would do to be able to tell the linux
bridge if some packet was prabably forwarded or not.
Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel
---
11 matches
Mail list logo
