From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:06:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20080412115950.1cbb9cfa@core> <20080418.153256.253949503.davem@davemloft.net> <480CEB7D.8070702@katalix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: James Chapman Return-path: Received: from ZSM1387.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:41779 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754393AbYDVTGP (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:06:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <480CEB7D.8070702@katalix.com> (James Chapman's message of "Mon\, 21 Apr 2008 20\:31\:09 +0100") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: James Chapman writes: > Generic ppp isn't specialized at all, and it isn't limited to async > serial devices. PPPoE, PPPoATM and L2TP use it. Perhaps I should write "dial-up" and other non-fixed connections. It's complex, I think kernel interface to generic HDLC would mean more code than PPP implementation required for fixed lines. Additional requirement - userspace daemon with additional plugin - may not be the best thing for fixed lines either. That would break backward compatibility, too. Personally I think it could be acceptable but it's not for me to decide. -- Krzysztof Halasa