search for: eth_p_linuxcontrol

...I really don't understand still is the use case... really. So there are control netdevs, what exactly is the problem with that? Are we not exporting enough information for applications to handle these devices sanely? If so, then's let add that information. We can set netdev->type to ETH_P_LINUXCONTROL or something like that. Another alternative is to add an interface flag like IFF_CONTROL or similar, and that probably is much nicer. Hiding the devices means that we acknowledge that applications are currently broken with control netdevs... and we want them to stay broken! That doesn't soun...

...I really don't understand still is the use case... really. So there are control netdevs, what exactly is the problem with that? Are we not exporting enough information for applications to handle these devices sanely? If so, then's let add that information. We can set netdev->type to ETH_P_LINUXCONTROL or something like that. Another alternative is to add an interface flag like IFF_CONTROL or similar, and that probably is much nicer. Hiding the devices means that we acknowledge that applications are currently broken with control netdevs... and we want them to stay broken! That doesn't soun...

...till is the use case... really. > > So there are control netdevs, what exactly is the problem with that? > > Are we not exporting enough information for applications to handle > these devices sanely? If so, then's let add that information. > > We can set netdev->type to ETH_P_LINUXCONTROL or something like that. > > Another alternative is to add an interface flag like IFF_CONTROL or > similar, and that probably is much nicer. > > Hiding the devices means that we acknowledge that applications are > currently broken with control netdevs... and we want them to stay &g...