| To: | cw@xxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:01:04 -0800 |
| Cc: | david@xxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20010108011308.A2575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from Chris Wedgwood on Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:13:08 +1300) |
| References: | <20010107162905.B1804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101070220410.4173-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010108011308.A2575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:13:08 +1300 From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool. Standard BSD allows it, what do you expect :-) This is good news, because it means there is a precedent for multiple addresses on a single interface so we can kill the <ifname>:<n> syntax in favor of the above which is cleaner of more accurately represents what is happening. If this is really true, 2.5.x is an appropriate time to make this, no sooner. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), David Ford |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |