On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:49:33 +0100
Thomas Graf <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Al Viro <[email protected]> 2006-12-13 20:12
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:17:56PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > I'm not sure whether that is important any longer. It probably isn't,
> > > but we should verify it before applying such a patch.
> >
> > There might be practical considerations along the lines of "we want
> > lookups for loopback to be fast"...
>
> What is this discussion actually about? Since we started registering
> devices directly hooked into the init process before device_initcall()
> the order is random. Even the bonding device is registered before the
> loopback.
> -
> 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
Loopback should be there before protocols are started. It makes sense
to have a standard startup order.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
