From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Cc: j.hadi123@gmail.com, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [CAN] [RFC] skb->iif usage and vcan driver background
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:37:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <467F9AED.1010309@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <467EA11A.7040109@hartkopp.net>
Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> Hello Patrick and Jamal,
>
> as i felt a bit misunderstood in the discussion about the usage of
> skb->iif and the idea behind the virtual CAN driver i created four
> PDF-slides to clarify some issues. The slides may give you the
> appropriate background why the incoming (receiving) interface is
> relevant at user level (which is unusual e.g. for PF_INET). Additionally
> i collected some points what the VCAN driver does - and especially what
> it is not for. So you will see, that approaches like VLAN (regarding
> IEEE 802.1Q) is nothing that can be done with the CAN bus by design. The
> PDF can be found at the BerliOS OSS server:
>
> http://download.berlios.de/socketcan/iif_and_vcan.pdf
I normally wouldn't have gone reading some PDF to explain a patch,
but this one was really worth it .. a couple of pictures of cars
with four applications using can0-can3 :)
> After reading the PDF ...
>
> @Patrick: The (optional) loading of the vcan module and the
> specification of the needed number of vcan devices (for the wanted
> use-case) was a very easy thing up to now that did not require any
> additional configuration nor additional userspace tools (except saying
> 'ifconfig vcan0 up'). As only the use-case required number of interfaces
> are allocated at module load time, i do not see a need for an extra
> netlink interface to implement an IMHO obsolete vcan add/remove
> mechanism. What could the implementation of the netlink API bring for
> the vcan driver use-case?
You keep talkign about "the use-case". This is *your* usage case
any just because *you* need four interfaces doesn't mean everyone
else on the world does too.
Your last slide brings it to the point: "... configured at module
load time for the needed use-case:
- number of created vcan devices (current default=4)
- perform the loopback on driver level (current default=off)"
So you *do* have parameters for configuration and you're using the
wrong interface. Either drop them or use the correct interface.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-25 10:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-22 3:44 [patch 0/7] CAN: Add new PF_CAN protocol family, try #3 Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 3:44 ` [patch 1/7] CAN: Allocate protocol numbers for PF_CAN Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 3:44 ` [patch 2/7] CAN: Add PF_CAN core module Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 3:44 ` [patch 3/7] CAN: Add raw protocol Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 3:44 ` [patch 4/7] CAN: Add broadcast manager (bcm) protocol Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 3:44 ` [patch 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 11:02 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-06-22 12:22 ` Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 12:38 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-06-23 12:05 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-23 12:52 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-06-23 15:13 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-23 16:25 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-06-23 16:42 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-23 17:13 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-04 11:37 ` Urs Thuermann
2007-07-04 14:01 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-09 11:37 ` Urs Thuermann
2007-07-09 14:18 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-09 15:27 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-07-11 19:41 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-07-11 22:52 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-16 6:05 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-07-16 8:37 ` David Miller
2007-07-16 13:08 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-16 16:27 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-07-16 13:07 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-07-16 16:00 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-23 21:01 ` David Miller
2007-06-23 21:44 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-24 16:51 ` [CAN] [RFC] skb->iif usage and vcan driver background Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-25 10:37 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
2007-06-25 14:50 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-23 20:51 ` [patch 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver David Miller
2007-06-23 21:49 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-22 3:44 ` [patch 6/7] CAN: Add maintainer entries Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 3:44 ` [patch 7/7] CAN: Add documentation Urs Thuermann
2007-06-22 12:34 ` [patch 0/7] CAN: Add new PF_CAN protocol family, try #3 Patrick McHardy
2007-06-22 15:57 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2007-06-22 16:23 ` Patrick McHardy
2007-06-22 17:19 ` Oliver Hartkopp
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=467F9AED.1010309@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=j.hadi123@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=urs@isnogud.escape.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).