From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751988Ab0CWFNS (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:13:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39989 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750924Ab0CWFNQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:13:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA84E6C.5030503@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:15:24 +0800 From: Cong Wang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091001) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: mpm@selenic.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, gospo@redhat.com, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, jmoyer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding devices References: <4BA823D7.4010106@redhat.com> <20100322.204939.146100390.davem@davemloft.net> <4BA847EB.9040808@redhat.com> <20100322.215822.123414773.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20100322.215822.123414773.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:47:39 +0800 > >> Yeah, for bonding case, probably. But for bridge case, I think >> we still need to check all, right? > > Why? Who cares? > > If it goes out one port and reaches it's destination > the objective has been achieved. > > Sending it out N more times achieves nothing. We have to check which port has the right destination. Ideally we should check the right destination address to choose the port, but currently we don't have a generic way to check this, thus I chose to send it to all ports. You are right, this needs to be improved. Thanks!