From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [RFC, VLAN]: Propagate selected feature bits to VLAN devices Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:28:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4832FC1F.90208@candelatech.com> References: <4832E223.7020206@trash.net> <20080520144822.GR28241@solarflare.com> <4832E55E.2030009@trash.net> <4832F260.5000104@candelatech.com> <20080520162011.GT28241@solarflare.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , Peter P Waskiewicz Jr , Linux Netdev List To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([66.165.47.212]:59895 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755885AbYETQ2U (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 12:28:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080520162011.GT28241@solarflare.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ben Hutchings wrote: > I would certainly be happy to see NETIF_F_GSO_MASK narrowed. It's just a > question of whether the low-order or high-order bits are removed. My > instinct is not to change the existing assigned flags if it's not really > necessary. They are exposed through /sys/class/net/ even if the flag > names aren't part of the user-land headers. > > Ben. > I guess it doesn't matter so much to me either way..so long as it is narrowed one way or another, and preferably narrowed enough to allow plenty of new flags down the road. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com