From: Nikolay Aleksandrov
[ Upstream commit 0353b4a96b7a9f60fe20d1b3ebd4931a4085f91c ]
Recently we had an interop issue where RARP packets got suppressed with
bridge neigh suppression enabled, but the check in the code was meant to
suppress GARP. Exclude RARP packets from it which would allow so
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov
[ Upstream commit 0353b4a96b7a9f60fe20d1b3ebd4931a4085f91c ]
Recently we had an interop issue where RARP packets got suppressed with
bridge neigh suppression enabled, but the check in the code was meant to
suppress GARP. Exclude RARP packets from it which would allow so
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov
[ Upstream commit 0353b4a96b7a9f60fe20d1b3ebd4931a4085f91c ]
Recently we had an interop issue where RARP packets got suppressed with
bridge neigh suppression enabled, but the check in the code was meant to
suppress GARP. Exclude RARP packets from it which would allow so
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov
[ Upstream commit 0353b4a96b7a9f60fe20d1b3ebd4931a4085f91c ]
Recently we had an interop issue where RARP packets got suppressed with
bridge neigh suppression enabled, but the check in the code was meant to
suppress GARP. Exclude RARP packets from it which would allow so
From: Florian Fainelli
[ Upstream commit ae1ea84b33dab45c7b6c1754231ebda5959b504c ]
Some Ethernet switches might only be able to support disabling multicast
snooping globally, which is an issue for example when several bridges
span the same physical device and request contradictory settings.
Pr
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov
[ Upstream commit 0353b4a96b7a9f60fe20d1b3ebd4931a4085f91c ]
Recently we had an interop issue where RARP packets got suppressed with
bridge neigh suppression enabled, but the check in the code was meant to
suppress GARP. Exclude RARP packets from it which would allow so
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:12:15AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> >> > and you create a dependency between the tagger and the switch driver
> >> > which was supposed by
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:12:15AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> > and you create a dependency between the tagger and the switch driver
>> > which was supposed by design to not exist.
>>
>> Sure, but _why_ should it not exist? Many fiel
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:49:12AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 18:00, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:04:04PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> >> - skb->cb->offload_fwd_mark becomes skb->cb->src_hwdom. There is a
> >> slight change here: Whereas
