Hello Patrick and Jamal, as i felt a bit misunderstood in the discussion about the usage of skb->iif and the idea behind the virtual CAN driver i created four PDF-slides to clarify some issues. The slides may give you the appropriate background why the incoming (receiving) interface is relevant at user level (which is unusual e.g. for PF_INET). Additionally i collected some points what the VCAN driver does - and especially what it is not for. So you will see, that approaches like VLAN (regarding IEEE 802.1Q) is nothing that can be done with the CAN bus by design. The PDF can be found at the BerliOS OSS server:
http://download.berlios.de/socketcan/iif_and_vcan.pdf After reading the PDF ... @Jamal: Please give me some feedback, if the (currently implemented) transport of the iif-information inside the skb up to socket level is ok for you. @Patrick: The (optional) loading of the vcan module and the specification of the needed number of vcan devices (for the wanted use-case) was a very easy thing up to now that did not require any additional configuration nor additional userspace tools (except saying 'ifconfig vcan0 up'). As only the use-case required number of interfaces are allocated at module load time, i do not see a need for an extra netlink interface to implement an IMHO obsolete vcan add/remove mechanism. What could the implementation of the netlink API bring for the vcan driver use-case? Thanks for your review! Oliver - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
