[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvyzkoj_KtfH6=YK5LnpLW_N6sMdk7Hu=V=h5OK08oRE4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:45:45 +0100
From: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz@....fraunhofer.de>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: Trying to implement secondary loopback
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Thomas Martitz
<thomas.martitz@....fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Am 15.03.2013 15:32, schrieb richard -rw- weinberger:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Thomas Martitz
>> <thomas.martitz@....fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The real question is, why do you need a second one?
>>>> I assume your driver (for the non-existing hardware) is a ethernet
>>>> driver,
>>>> and now you're looking for a way to test your shiny new ethX device,
>>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. But that's only the first step. Once I have the basic ethX device
>>> working I want to make sure the PCIe data transfer is working (with good
>>> performance), ideally using the very same test application in user space.
>>
>>
>> And there is the second loopback device is this picture?
>>
>
> Mine is the second one, as I cannot modify "lo". The standard "lo" interface
> is the the first loopback and it seems to be hardcoded to be the only one.
And why can't you implement a regular ethernet driver like everyone else does?
--
Thanks,
//richard
--
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