[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5332BA7A.2060003@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:31:06 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
CC: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, andy@...yhouse.net,
dborkman@...hat.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, jesse@...ira.com,
pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support
of switch chip datapath
On 03/26/14 07:06, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> If it cant do bonding and the chip is capable of LAGging, it is simply
> the wrong approach. I dont think what has been described so far will
> have a problem doing bonding.
So here's a half a coffee of ascii for yer to just up the game a little.
If cant do this when the chip is capable - then IMO it is the wrong
interface.
cheers,
jamal
View attachment "x3" of type "text/plain" (1256 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists