| To: | Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:36:23 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ak@xxxxxxx>, <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010107183032.E28257@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > 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? > Absolutely. I think we need a VLAN implementation in there. cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Gleb Natapov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Alan Cox |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), Gleb Natapov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumissionpolicy!), Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |