From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:32:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:32:15 -0500 Received: from gleb.nbase.co.il ([194.90.136.56]:55047 "EHLO gleb.nbase.co.il") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:32:06 -0500 From: Gleb Natapov Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:30:32 +0200 To: jamal Cc: "David S. Miller" , ak@suse.de, greearb@candelatech.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) Message-ID: <20010107183032.E28257@nbase.co.il> In-Reply-To: <200101070543.VAA24689@pizda.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from hadi@cyberus.ca on Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:56:23AM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:56:23AM -0500, jamal wrote: [snip] > > I used to be against VLANS being devices, i am withdrawing that comment; it's > a lot easier to look on them as devices if you want to run IP on them. And > in this case, it makes sense the possibilirt of over a thousand devices > is good. > Glad to hear :) So perhaps this is a good time to move one of VLAN implementations into the official kernel? -- Gleb. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/