From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: Informations About CAN API of the Linux Kernel Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:20:07 +0100 Message-ID: <513E1247.1070405@hartkopp.net> References: <2B7D120CFC15DC438D721B998AD9D9E9097105AB@SEGOTNC5180-N2.vcn.ds.volvo.net> <513763CC.1070507@pengutronix.de> <20130307124012.GC603@vandijck-laurijssen.be> <5139A78D.9060005@pengutronix.de> <20130308100548.GA496@vandijck-laurijssen.be> <20130308125123.GA28383@pengutronix.de> <20130311092923.GA5114@vandijck-laurijssen.be> <513DF3D4.6090605@pengutronix.de> <20130311153437.GD5114@vandijck-laurijssen.be> <513DFFBB.8050406@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.160]:50218 "EHLO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751379Ab3CKRUK (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:20:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <513DFFBB.8050406@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marc Kleine-Budde Cc: Robert Schwebel , Sako Youssouf , "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" On 11.03.2013 17:00, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 03/11/2013 04:34 PM, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >>> Does j1939 have a protocol number? Probably. >> Yes. 7. >> >>> If so, we shouldn't use the >>> "next free" one for an experimental protocol. >> That's another reason to have J1939 merged. >> I would have alerted anyhow when the protocol number 7 got allocated... > > Yes, but as soon as you are "officially" using the number 7, you have to > provide a stable API and ABI to the userspace. Yep - Additionally i don't think, that reserving the "7" for CAN_J1939 is a strong reason for pushing the merge process. We (will say "the Linux CAN community") all know that J1939 is prepared by Kurt and that we reserve the "7" proto number for it. I personally see no reason that someone tries to allocate the "7" without our joint acknowledge. Regards, Oliver