From: "Christian Benvenuti (benve)" <be...@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:35:59 +0000
> if we assume that the kernel is supposed to deal properly with .1p tagged
> frames, regardless
> of what the next header is (802.{1Q,1AD} or something else), I think the case
> this patch was
> trying to address (that is 1Q+1AD) is not handled properly in the case of
> priority tagged frames
> when the (1Q) vlan is untagged and therefore 1Q is only used to carry 1p.
>
> [1P vid=0][1AD].
>
> Here is a simplified summary of how the kernel is dealing with priority
> frames right now, based on
> - what the next protocol is
> and
> - whether a vlan device exists or not for the outer (1Q) header.
Yeah I think I misunderstood the situation.
Please repost the patch.
Thanks.
