Date:        Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:36:30 -0800
    From:        Jonathan Stone <jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu>
    Message-ID:  <E1Cc7bz-0002Kv-00@smeg.dsg.stanford.edu>

  | Not ``if''.  The semantics don't match the various uses that've been
  | suggested here as justifications for cloning loopback. That's a fact.

And now, as anyone with a current -current can easily test multiple
loopbacks, we have a much better chance of discovering just what is
possible, and what needs to be altered.

  | Robert, that's just nonsense.  Remember ``no code before its time''?

Which code do you believe it isn't time for?

  | (I'm sure Christos does.)  There was absolutely nothing preveting
  | Peter Postma from fixing any issues with clonable loopback interfaces
  | *BEFORE* committing the cloning changes. That's clearly a better way
  | to proceed.

Why?   That makes no sense to me.   We always had (well, always for 11+ years)
multiple loopback interface capability (working "properly" or not).
If anyone felt a need to fix that, they've had plenty of time.

The cloning stuff seems as if it works fine (for unrelated reasons current
kernels don't seem to want to run on any of my systems, and haven't for a
few weeks now, so I can't test it myself, as much as I want to.   One day
I'll find time to work out what the problem is - something dumb with the
way I'm building things probably).

In exactly what way do you believe we're worse off now than before?

If there isn't one, then what are you complaining about really?

kre