Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753444AbaBSJsc (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:48:32 -0500 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:19797 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753004AbaBSJs1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:48:27 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,504,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="102120835" Message-ID: <1392803304.23084.95.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2 0/4] net: bridge / ip optimizations for virtual net backends From: Ian Campbell To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: David Vrabel , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , , Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:48:24 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1392433180-16052-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <5301E411.5060908@citrix.com> Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.80] X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 11:43 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > New motivation: removing IPv4 and IPv6 from the backend interfaces can > save up a lot of boiler plate run time code, triggers from ever taking > place, and simplifying the backend interaces. If there is no use for > IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces why do we have them? Note: I have yet to test > the NAT case. I think you need to do that test that before you can unequivocally state that there is no use for IPv4/6 interfaces here. Ian. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/