[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50FDB039.2070604@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:16:41 +0100
From: Stephan Gatzka <stephan.gatzka@...il.com>
To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
CC: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
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
>> 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?
>
> I do not understand what "that" and "this" mean here.
> Do you want to have different FIFO on single net_device? If yes, for what?
>
Oh, I'm sorry for being mixed-up. I meant that your proposal for
enhancing the hardware address seems to be a feasible solution, if we
_never_ want to have distinct fifo addresses for IPv4 and IPv6. This
will be just impossible with a single netdevice.
But I have to admit that I have no good use case for different fifo
addresses...
So overall, your proposal seems to be a possible solution. Nevertheless,
I can't help that I find it a bit awkward to have speed, max_rec and
fifo address in the hardware address of the network device. For me,
that's just the GUID.
I want to have an ack from Stefan Richter before I'm going to implement
your solution.
Regards,
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