From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Richter Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] firewire net: IPv6 support (RFC3146). Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:42:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20130112184234.313f8283@stein> References: <50F17171.3050105@linux-ipv6.org> <20130112162224.10e2aa44@stein> <20130112180058.0289baba@stein> <50F19A1B.7050200@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: stephan.gatzka@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:32977 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753743Ab3ALRmy (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:42:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <50F19A1B.7050200@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jan 12 Stephan Gatzka wrote: > > > Another thing: As far as I understand, the current code assumes that > > peers will use the same unicast_FIFO for IPv4 unicast as for IPv6 > > unicast. This is not necessarily true. Either firewire-net needs to > > maintain two lists of peers (one for IPv4, another for IPv6), or it needs > > to maintain two unicast_FIFOs per peer. > > > > Thanks for pointing that out. I would go for two unicast_Fifos per peer. Indeed. Plus, if we look up an IPv6 peer whose IPv6 unicast_FIFO is as yet unkown but whose IPv4 unicast_FIFO is already known, we could optimistically use the latter until we learn the former. And vice versa. -- Stefan Richter -=====-===-= ---= -==-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/