From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [RFC:] struct net_device_ops: Add function pointer to fill device specific ndisc information Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:57:43 +0900 Message-ID: <50FD9DB7.60802@linux-ipv6.org> References: <50FC2EE4.3080705@gmail.com> <50FC3BB1.4070005@linux-ipv6.org> <50FC6068.3020302@gmail.com> <50FCA825.7070609@linux-ipv6.org> <50FCDF5D.3060300@gmail.com> <20130121083957.6e2c5a68@stein> <50FD962B.8020500@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Richter , netdev , linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, David Miller , YOSHIFUJI Hideaki To: stephan.gatzka@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from 94.43.138.210.xn.2iij.net ([210.138.43.94]:50585 "EHLO mail.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752704Ab3AUT5p (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:57:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: <50FD962B.8020500@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Stephan Gatzka wrote: > >> Two net_device instances on one 1394 card would be awkward: They would >> have to share one instance of isochronous reception context (for reception >> of asynchronous 1394 streams; those are used for broadcasts and >> multicasts). Such a sharing is surely possible, but if double net_device >> instantiation can be avoided, then avoid it. >> >> Not to mention the user interface problem of having two netifs, one which >> only supports IPv4 and another one which only supports IPv6. So far I >> never had IPv6 configured into a Linux kernel, but I suppose that folks >> are used to be able to use eth0 etc. for both protocols. > > Full ack. And that's the reason why I feel very uncomfortable with a Yoshifujis hardware address extensions by fifo_addr, spd, and max_rec. > > This seems possible with a single netdevice for IPv4/6 only if we _always_ use the same fifo address for both IPv4 and IPv6. Do we all agree on that? I do not understand what "that" and "this" mean here. Do you want to have different FIFO on single net_device? If yes, for what? --yoshfuji