From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:14:42 +0100 References: <20091113195201.11184.25766.stgit@mimic.site> <20091113195529.11184.19011.stgit@mimic.site> In-Reply-To: <20091113195529.11184.19011.stgit@mimic.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200911272314.42641.arnd@arndb.de> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 3/3] macvlan: allow in-kernel modules to create and manage macvlan devices List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Patrick Mullaney Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Friday 13 November 2009, Patrick Mullaney wrote: > > The macvlan driver didn't allow for creation/deletion of devices > by other in-kernel modules. This patch provides common routines > for both in-kernel and netlink based management. This patch > also enables macvlan device support for gro for lower level > devices that support gro. I wonder if doing this way round is a good idea, why don't you just use netlink to set up the endpoint device like the current macvlan and macvtap do? I think doing it consistently for all backends would be a significant advantage. Arnd <><