From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] 8021q: validate SAN MAC address Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:58:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20121113.205845.1523743296362293053.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1352850029.6276.52.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20121113.202408.79469396824848499.davem@davemloft.net> <1352857850.6276.71.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: mchan@broadcom.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:52411 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756154Ab2KNB6r (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:58:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1352857850.6276.71.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "Michael Chan" Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:50:50 -0800 > On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 20:24 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: "Michael Chan" >> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:40:29 -0800 >> >> > I suppose we can just put the SAN MAC into the real netdev->dev_addr so >> > that the VLAN will automatically get it. But this doesn't seem very >> > nice as we would be pretending to have a normal MAC address (for >> > networking) in this SAN device. The networking MAC address is in a >> > different PCI function. >> >> I certainly would prefer if you took that approach. At least in that >> way the addressing of the netdev objects would appear more consistent. >> > Ok. To be more complete, I think we need to add a flag or something to > such a netdev to indicate that it is a SAN device only. What's your > opinion on that? Yes, that would describe the limitation you mentioned. Maybe add a new netdev->priv_flags for this.