Urs Thuermann wrote: > Now I think we should consider removing the loopback code from > can_send() and demand from each CAN driver that it *has to* implement > this itself. >
I also thought about this solution, which would remove the 'loopback' parameter in vcan.c and some loopback code in can_send(). My only concern was, that this would break with standard netdev behaviour just to send and receive data to/from the medium. To break with the standard behaviour might be ok here as the PF_CAN only deals with CAN netdevs (ARPHRD_CAN) which can be seen as some closed eco-system. But i don't know what should happen, if someone in the future gets the idea to route CAN-frames over ethernet devices for any reason? In this case we would have to touch every driver we'd like to support. IMO it makes more sense to let the 9 lines of loopback fallback code in can_send() than to remove it. 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
