From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: set_multicast_list vs. set_rx_mode Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:33:28 +0200 Message-ID: <1187181208.3998.44.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-fXs1SAJhFWcOYlpeAwIb" Cc: Patrick McHardy To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:37951 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753976AbXHOMau (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:30:50 -0400 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --=-fXs1SAJhFWcOYlpeAwIb Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, Is it intentional that in the case where set_rx_mode is assigned, you still need to assign set_multicast_list even if it won't ever be called as a flag for SIOCADDMULTI? I was thinking of converting the wireless code to use set_rx_mode and assign set_multicast_list only if the underlying hardware supports multicast filtering, and it seems that is well-supported, but it does seem a bit weird that set_multicast_list degrades to a flag. johannes --=-fXs1SAJhFWcOYlpeAwIb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGwvKY/ETPhpq3jKURAl1IAJ9zZxUFuuzVmnOVdIPTugiQ84bYDQCfWSxM JiAZVaS4DZP30YRZ5897JjE= =Cg6N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-fXs1SAJhFWcOYlpeAwIb--