Re: Netlink connector
From: Evgeniy Polyakov
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 04:03:02 EST
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 04:42:14AM -0400, Harald Welte (laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 02:02:10AM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, David S. Miller wrote:
> > >From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:14:55 +0400
> > >>Andrew has no objection against connector and it lives in -mm
> > >A patch sitting in -mm has zero significance.
> > The significance I think is that Andrew is trying to gently encourage some
> > further progress in the area.
> Patrick McHardy is currently working on some ideas on how to extend
> The fundamental problem that the connector is trying to solve:
> 1) provide more 'groups' (to transport more different kinds of events)
> 2) provide an abstract API for other kernel code, so it doesn't have to
> know anything about skb's or networking.
> IMHO issue number '1' should (and can) be adressed within netlink. Wait
> for Patrick's work on this to show up on netdev. We can then think
> whether the connctor API (or something similar) can be put on top of it.
Let's do it this way.
> - Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://netfilter.org/
> "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
> architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
> on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/