From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:44:45 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko Message-ID: <20090319084444.GA4123@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <20090314094911.GA3455@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090315161217.7fa2c3a7@nehalam> <20090316111127.GB3484@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090318.232003.30974750.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090318.232003.30974750.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work properly in bridge List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Miller Cc: fubar@us.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:20:03AM CET, davem@davemloft.net wrote: >From: Jiri Pirko >Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:11:28 +0100 > >> I can see two solutions. Either like my patch or somehow allow bridge to know >> more MAC addressses per port (maybe netdev can be changed to know more then >> one MAC address). >> >> Any thoughts? > >The netdev struct already supports having a list of multiple unicast >MAC addresses, it can probably be used and inspected for this. Yes I was looking at this thing yesterday (uc_list). But this list serves to different purpose. Do you think that it will be correct to use it for this? I would maybe like to make a new list similar to this for our purpose (say addr_list). I think it would be more correct. Eventually in the furute we would use this list as a primary place to store device address instead of dev_addr value and make it more general (as device generally may have more adresses). Just a thought... > >I'll hold off on your patch until we make some more progress on >this discussion.