[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100322.215822.123414773.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: amwang@...hat.com
Cc: mpm@...enic.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
gospo@...hat.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and
bonding devices
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:47:39 +0800
> Yeah, for bonding case, probably. But for bridge case, I think
> we still need to check all, right?
Why? Who cares?
If it goes out one port and reaches it's destination
the objective has been achieved.
Sending it out N more times achieves nothing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists