On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:50:41 -0500, Eric Garver wrote: > Should we not also follow the "skbs are untagged" approach that the rest > of the kernel uses? I'm referring to patches 1 and 2 form Jiri's series > "openvswitch: make vlan handling consistent". > > With those changes is_skb_forwardable() would behave as expected here.
Yes, this would make the check easy and consistent (and was actually my original motivation for the mentioned patchset). Still, is_skb_forwardable would be off by 4 bytes. I wonder whether it's not off even for the bridge case. And dev_forward_skb seems to be fishy, too. Jiri
