From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, urs@isnogud.escape.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net ipv4: When possible test for IFF_LOOPBACK and not dev == loopback_dev
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:10:27 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m18x6sm6mk.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46FB873C.6060200@fr.ibm.com> (Daniel Lezcano's message of "Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:34:36 +0200")
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Now that multiple loopback devices are becoming possible it makes
>> the code a little cleaner and more maintainable to test if a deivice
>> is th a loopback device by testing dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK instead
>> of dev == loopback_dev.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
>
>
> Urs Thuermann posted the patch:
>
> [PATCH 5/7] CAN: Add virtual CAN netdevice driver
>
> This network driver set its flag to IFF_LOOPBACK for testing.
> Is it possible this can be a collision with your patch ?
I have brought it up on that thread. As best as I tell the CAN usage
of IFF_LOOPBACK will be a problem even without my patch. Assuming
something other then the CAN layer will see the CAN devices.
The CAN documentations IFF_LOOPBACK should be set on all CAN devices.
It seems that the people who want high performance predictable CAN
don't want this and the people who want something they can trace
easily want this.
It sounds to me like CAN routers don't exist.
Anyway hopefully that usage can be resolved as that code is reviewed,
and made ready to merge.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-27 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-26 23:53 [PATCH 1/4] net: Dynamically allocate the per cpu counters for the loopback device Eric W. Biederman
2007-09-26 23:55 ` [PATCH 2/4] net ipv4: Remove unnecessary test for the loopback device from inetdev_destroy Eric W. Biederman
2007-09-26 23:58 ` [PATCH 3/4] net ipv4: When possible test for IFF_LOOPBACK and not dev == loopback_dev Eric W. Biederman
2007-09-27 0:00 ` [PATCH 4/4] net: Make the loopback device per network namespace Eric W. Biederman
2007-09-27 5:11 ` David Miller
2007-09-27 12:14 ` [Devel] " Denis V. Lunev
2007-09-27 16:48 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-09-27 5:10 ` [PATCH 3/4] net ipv4: When possible test for IFF_LOOPBACK and not dev == loopback_dev David Miller
2007-09-27 10:34 ` Daniel Lezcano
2007-09-27 16:10 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2007-09-27 5:09 ` [PATCH 2/4] net ipv4: Remove unnecessary test for the loopback device from inetdev_destroy David Miller
2007-09-27 5:09 ` [PATCH 1/4] net: Dynamically allocate the per cpu counters for the loopback device David Miller
2007-09-27 7:48 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-09-27 18:52 ` David Miller
2007-09-27 20:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-09-27 20:56 ` David Miller
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=m18x6sm6mk.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dlezcano@fr.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--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).