From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/39] merge request for WiMAX kernel stack and i2400m driver v2 Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:47:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87k5ap2xw6.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> References: <1227783281.3809.78.camel@johannes.berg> <00E41CD2-3C1B-4B39-8720-698DBC236CE8@holtmann.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Berg , Inaky Perez-Gonzalez , netdev To: Marcel Holtmann Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:36170 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752599AbYK0Lrs (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:47:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <00E41CD2-3C1B-4B39-8720-698DBC236CE8@holtmann.org> (Marcel Holtmann's message of "Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:14:30 +0100") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Marcel Holtmann writes: > > Either we do Ethernet framing or a pure IP device. I am for the pure > IP device with a separate ARP header (which we managed to get > allocated). Wrapping everything into Ethernet only because dhclient is > broken is not an answer. An alternate option would be a point-to-point It's not only dhclient, but also lots of other raw packet users like tcpdump etc. > device like the HSO driver or PPP is using. However then the usage of > DHCP becomes a lot more trickier. I personally think user convenience is more important at least short term. It's also not that the pseudo header is that much overhead. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com