From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [patch 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:07:25 +0200 Message-ID: <469B6D8D.1030809@trash.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> <467D4D65.2080806@hartkopp.net> <467D54AB.5010407@trash.net> <468BA83A.7070500@trash.net> <469243D3.3090208@trash.net> <469253CE.8040004@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Urs Thuermann , David Miller , Oliver Hartkopp , j.hadi123@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Oliver Hartkopp Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:49865 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755744AbXGPNI5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:08:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <469253CE.8040004@hartkopp.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>Still configuration of the network device based on module parameters. >>What about people that want loopback and non-loopback devices at the >>same time? >> > > the people get the loopback functionality in ANY case. There is indeed > no difference from the view of the users, if you change this switch. > > The possibility to enable the loopback on vcan driver level is only to ... > > 1. Test the loopback fallback code in af_can.c > 2. Show, how a correct loopback handling is to be implemented > > ... nothing more. So its the "correct" handling and the other one is only fallback? That still sounds like it wants proper configuration. How does loopback work without this driver?