Re: [PATCH] bonding: do not enslave CAN devices

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:12:48 +0100

> On 3/2/20 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:45:41 +0100
>> 
>>> I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have CAN bonding/team
>>> devices. But if so we would need some more investigation. For now
>>> disabling CAN interfaces for bonding/team devices seems to be
>>> reasonable.
>> 
>> Every single interesting device that falls into a special use case
>> like CAN is going to be tempted to add a similar check.
>> 
>> I don't want to set this precedence.
>> 
>> Check that the devices you get passed are actually CAN devices, it's
>> easy, just compare the netdev_ops and make sure they equal the CAN
>> ones.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not really sure how to implement this check.

Like this:

if (netdev->ops != &can_netdev_ops)
	return;

Done.



[Index of Archives]     [Automotive Discussions]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [CAN Bus]

  Powered by Linux