Eric Woudstra <ericwouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Without patches: > > PASS: unaware bridge, without encaps, without fastpath > PASS: unaware bridge, with single vlan encap, without fastpath > ERROR: unaware bridge, with double q vlan encaps, without fastpath: ipv4/6: established bytes 0 < 4194304 > ERROR: unaware bridge, with 802.1ad vlan encaps, without fastpath: ipv4/6: established bytes 0 < 4194304 > PASS: aware bridge, without/without vlan encap, without fastpath > PASS: aware bridge, with/without vlan encap, without fastpath > PASS: aware bridge, with/with vlan encap, without fastpath > PASS: aware bridge, without/with vlan encap, without fastpath > PASS: forward, without vlan-device, without vlan encap, client1, without fastpath > PASS: forward, without vlan-device, without vlan encap, client1, with fastpath > PASS: forward, without vlan-device, with vlan encap, client1, without fastpath > ERROR: forward, without vlan-device, with vlan encap, client1, with fastpath: ipv4/6: tcp broken > PASS: forward, with vlan-device, with vlan encap, client1, without fastpath > PASS: forward, with vlan-device, with vlan encap, client1, with fastpath > PASS: forward, with vlan-device, without vlan encap, client1, without fastpath > PASS: forward, with vlan-device, without vlan encap, client1, with fastpath > ERROR: bridge fastpath test has failed Would you mind sending a version without RFC tag that passes without any of the patches? I'll leave it up to you if you prefer to remove the subtests that don't work without your changes or downgrade them to a SKIP or similar. That way, at least this patch could be applied. And I think we can all agree that it would be good to have it in-tree.
