netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 06:32:14 +0100
Cc: cw@xxxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200101071201.EAA01790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from davem@xxxxxxxxxx on Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:01:04AM -0800
References: <20010107162905.B1804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101070220410.4173-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010108011308.A2575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200101071201.EAA01790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:01:04AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>    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.

I think it would be better to keep it. The ifa based alias interface 
emulation adds minor overhead (currently it's only a few lines of code,
assuming we need named if addresses for other reasons too, which we do) 
and removing it it would break a lot of configuration scripts etc., for 
no really good gain. 


-Andi




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>