On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:16:03AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > Would you be so kind to try this fixup patch on top? > > That works for me, thank you! So for the whole patch when you resend, > you can add: > > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>
Thanks again for testing! > > Although I am much less confident now about submitting this as a bugfix > > patch to go to stable trees. But I also kind of dislike the idea that > > Tobias' patch (which returns -EOPNOTSUPP in dsa_slave_vlan_rx_add_vid) > > only masks the problem and makes issues harder to reproduce. > > > > Tobias, how bad is your problem? Do you mind if we tackle it in net-next? > > Also, again, any chance you could make mv88e6xxx not refuse the 8021q > > VLAN IDs? > > I was thinking the same last night while sending my results, as far as I > can tell the switches that have global VLAN filtering or hellcreek are > not broken currently right? Yes. > If only mv88e6xxx seems to be requiring special treatment, how do we > feel about adding an argument to port_vlan_add() and port_vlan_del() > that tell us the context in which they are called, that is via 802.1q > upper, or via bridge and have mv88e6xxx ignore the former but not the > latter? How would you then describe to .port_vlan_add() those VLANs that don't come either from the bridge nor from 8021q uppers, but from direct calls to vlan_vid_add? A VLAN is a VLAN, and a driver with configure_vlan_while_not_filtering should accept it. If mv88e6xxx refuses this right away: ip link add link lan0 name lan0.100 type vlan id 100 Then traffic through lan0.100 will be broken as soon as we do: ip link add br0 type bridge vlan_filtering 1 ip link set lan0 master br0 So I believe we should be looking at how to make the Marvell driver accept the VLAN, not how to help it refuse it in other ways.
