From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: can-j1939 API Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:18:25 +0100 Message-ID: <563762A1.7020601@hartkopp.net> References: <20150929194920.GA11430@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be> <20151018023225.GA29078@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be> <20151019204442.GA16852@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be> <20151023111430.GB22388@airbook.eia.lan> <56327492.9030405@hartkopp.net> <20151029233806.GA12740@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be> <563753C2.3030109@hartkopp.net> <20151102122913.GA25072@airbook.eia.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.162]:24079 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751373AbbKBNSc (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:18:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20151102122913.GA25072@airbook.eia.lan> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alex Layton , linux-can On 02.11.2015 13:29, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >> From: Oliver Hartkopp >> To: Alex Layton , linux-can , >>> 'per socket' is a bit dubious. In contrast to Alex, I would not restrict >>> a specific SA or Name to a single socket for reasons I gave earlier. >> >> If I understand you correctly the first socket which is giving his address >> information enables the j1939 address (claiming) handling inside the Kernel, >> right? > > That's the plan. > I would keep the address claiming itself as today in userspace. Oh - but what is net/can/j1939/address-claim.c then? Did it become obsolete? >> Btw. is it possible to create two processes on the same Linux box which >> implement two different j1939 nodes (e.g. engine and trailer) that can >> communicate with each other both using the *same* CAN interface (can0 or >> vcan0)?? > > Yes. > This kind of transparency was one of my goals. Great. Regards, Oliver