[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50FD962B.8020500@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:25:31 +0100
From: Stephan Gatzka <stephan.gatzka@...il.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC:] struct net_device_ops: Add function pointer to fill device
specific ndisc information
> Two net_device instances on one 1394 card would be awkward: They would
> have to share one instance of isochronous reception context (for reception
> of asynchronous 1394 streams; those are used for broadcasts and
> multicasts). Such a sharing is surely possible, but if double net_device
> instantiation can be avoided, then avoid it.
>
> Not to mention the user interface problem of having two netifs, one which
> only supports IPv4 and another one which only supports IPv6. So far I
> never had IPv6 configured into a Linux kernel, but I suppose that folks
> are used to be able to use eth0 etc. for both protocols.
Full ack. And that's the reason why I feel very uncomfortable with a
Yoshifujis hardware address extensions by fifo_addr, spd, and max_rec.
This seems possible with a single netdevice for IPv4/6 only if we
_always_ use the same fifo address for both IPv4 and IPv6. Do we all
agree on that?
Stephan
--
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