| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) |
| From: | Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:30:32 +0200 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, ak@xxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101071026070.18916-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from hadi@xxxxxxxxxx on Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:56:23AM -0500 |
| References: | <200101070543.VAA24689@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101071026070.18916-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:56:23AM -0500, jamal wrote:
[snip]
>
> I used to be against VLANS being devices, i am withdrawing that comment; it's
> a lot easier to look on them as devices if you want to run IP on them. And
> in this case, it makes sense the possibilirt of over a thousand devices
> is good.
>
Glad to hear :) So perhaps this is a good time to move one of VLAN
implementations
into the official kernel?
--
Gleb.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |