From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: can-j1939: semantics question Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:49:14 +0100 Message-ID: <5643A9CA.8060509@hartkopp.net> References: <20151111195255.GB23275@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.221]:23332 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752449AbbKKUtS (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:49:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20151111195255.GB23275@airbook.vandijck-laurijssen.be> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alex Layton , linux-can , Kurt Van Dijck On 11.11.2015 20:52, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > I eventually got into investigating the necessary changes to drop > iproute2 from can-j1939. > We somewhat agreed that opening a can-j1939 socket and binding > to a CAN interface should activate can-j1939 processing for that > interface. > But how about deactivation? > Should the last can-j1939 socket on a CAN iface deactivate can-j1939 for > that iface when that socket closes? At least this sounds like some kind of natural behaviour. What would be the other option? Would you still monitor address claiming inside the kernel without doing anything else? Or is the address claiming in user space the last application that closes the last socket anyway?? Regards, Oliver