Jeremy Jackson wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 14:46 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Brian Oostenbrink wrote:
>>> In vlan_skb_recv, packets are generally stripped of their vlan header,
>>> and then re-queued via netif_rx().  Is there a reason for re-queuing
>>> these instead of calling netif_receive_skb() directly?  On our system
>>> (an embedded linux router), this re-queuing has a significant
>>> performance penalty.
>> Its done to save stack space. There's currently a discussion
>> about making loopback use netif_receive_skb in case enough
>> stack is still available. Once that patch gets merged I'll
>> change VLAN in a similar way.
> 
> There was a patch floating around fixing VLAN + Bridge, I'm wondering if
> it got any traction (ie merged), or if this would affect future merge of
> that feature?

Whats broken with VLAN + Bridge? Do you have a pointer to
this patch?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html