Subject: Re: [VLAN] vlan_skb_recv

From: Patrick McHardy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:27:10 +0100

Ben Greear wrote:
> Stephen Anderson wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> To help increase throughput and bypass the backlog queue, I changed the
>> netif_rx() to netif_receive_skb() in vlan_skb_recv().  What's the
>> argument for using netif_rx() other than legacy maintenance?  At this
>> point, interrupt context should not be an issue.  Layer 2 performance
>> has been a big focus in my area of development.

I guess the only point is to reduce stack usage. Its probably not
a problem with only VLAN, but it might be with further tunnels,
IPsec, ...

>> I'm sure you have seen many attempts to implement a single VLAN aware
>> IVL FDB in the past and I was wondering which attempt do you feel was
>> the best?  Have you ever considered integrating your VLAN support
>> natively into the bridging code base or know of any attempts to do just
>> that?

Without having thought about this much, it seems to me that
it needs to be integrated in the bridge fdb to work properly.