Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752755Ab1FCKlr (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:41:47 -0400 Received: from eu1sys200aog107.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.123]:50233 "EHLO eu1sys200aog107.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752231Ab1FCKlq convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:41:46 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1027 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:41:43 EDT From: Alexey ORISHKO To: Oliver Neukum Cc: "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" , Dan Williams , Stefan Metzmacher , Oliver Neukum , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:23:21 +0200 Subject: RE: [PATCH] TODO FLAG_POINTTOPOINT => FLAG_WWAN? usbnet/cdc_ncm: mark ncm devices as "mobile broadband devices" with FLAG_WWAN Thread-Topic: [PATCH] TODO FLAG_POINTTOPOINT => FLAG_WWAN? usbnet/cdc_ncm: mark ncm devices as "mobile broadband devices" with FLAG_WWAN Thread-Index: Acwh1OO8axxr+YnPShqX4tXrAep9xAAASIgA Message-ID: <2AC7D4AD8BA1C640B4C60C61C8E520153E3C13B620@EXDCVYMBSTM006.EQ1STM.local> References: <1306922913-17803-1-git-send-email-metze@samba.org> <5203.1307062683@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <2AC7D4AD8BA1C640B4C60C61C8E520153E3C13B5F2@EXDCVYMBSTM006.EQ1STM.local> <201106031201.21933.oneukum@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <201106031201.21933.oneukum@suse.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1403 Lines: 29 > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Neukum [mailto:oneukum@suse.de] > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:01 PM > > This is not ideal. Distributions cannot care about every VIP:PID value. > If a device with an NCM interface needs to be treated in a special > manner we'd better have a special name for such interfaces. There is no difference between cdc_ncm and cdc_ether devices, besides the fact cdc_ncm is more efficient in data transfer and cpu load. The problem is that you cannot say much about device functionality based just on interface name. As example existing devices with cdc_ether interface could be mobile phone which provides connectivity to 3G network, or could be a phone in the mode "over PC", where phone applications access internet via broadband connection on PC (to save money). Network manager cannot simply make decision which devices can be used for mobile broadband access based on interface name. It needs an additional info, which does not exist in device descriptor. So, back to original question, is there any point to rename an interface name, if it can't be guaranteed that any device would be wwan device? /alexey -- 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/