From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [patch 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:42:13 +0200 Message-ID: <467D4D65.2080806@hartkopp.net> References: <20070622034452.28886.0@janus.isnogud.escape.de> <20070622034703.28886.5@janus.isnogud.escape.de> <467BAC48.1070700@trash.net> <467BC2AF.8080901@trash.net> <467D0C97.1000000@hartkopp.net> <467D178B.8080503@trash.net> <467D3891.4010906@hartkopp.net> <467D4965.40601@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , j.hadi123@gmail.com, Urs Thuermann , Thomas Gleixner , Oliver Hartkopp , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.160]:29877 "EHLO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755084AbXFWQmz (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:42:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <467D4965.40601@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > > BTW, in case the loopback device is required for normal > operation it might make sense to create *one* device by > default, but four identical devices seems a bit extreme. > > As i wrote before CAN addressing consists of CAN-Identifiers and the used interface. The use of four vcan's is definitely a usual case! Oliver