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