| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 11:12:35 +0400 From: Maxim Osipov <maxim.osipov@...il.com> To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> Cc: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, slapin@...fans.org, davem@...emloft.net, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ieee802154: add documentation about our stack On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Marcel Holtmann<marcel@...tmann.org> wrote: >> Hmm. AX.25, AppleTalk, CAN, DecNet, most of other procotols sitting inside >> Linux kernel do use net_device structure, why should we differ? > > Don't know about CAN since I never looked deep enough into it. However > for the other, they do transport some sort of networking packets over > it. So my point is as long as I can use ifconfig of ip to set an address > on these interfaces and route them it makes sense to. Just to reuse > net_device because it is convenient for a control interface sounds wrong > to me. The IrDA stuff is one big example of this. > ieee802154 does actually transport networking packets. It is networking and not just another peer-to-peer interface, so I guess it shall be implemented as a network. Kind regards, Maxim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists