Jeff Garzik a écrit :
> > You forgot one important aspect :
> > (4) does moving code to userspace break compatibility (or behavior)
> > with user land applications (or systems)
> I agree... assuming these userland interfaces are fairly standard and
> widely deployed.
> > What can one do if say, kernel 2.[4|5] switches the NIC in 10 mseconds
> > while kernel 2.7 with user land daemon switches in a few seconds ?
> > nothing but stay with the previous version or fork the driver development
> > ;-(
> This is a silly example. If that happens in practice, then that is a
> bug in the configuration of the userland daemon, or a bug in the
> kernel<->userland ABI.
Not a silly example but a real case that happened to me with another
operating system and I'd hate if it happens also with Linux ...
> > But I agree that it is interesting to do some stuff at user land, and if
> > the bonding had an option to disable the automatic failover policy,
> > this could be implemented with trigger towards user land application that
> > could use an ioctl call to switch to the appropriate NIC according to
> > the user lan configuration ...
> Remember, ioctls are bad. :) Unix design mistake.
ioctl (which already exist) or something else, this is not the point here.
> > what happens when the
> > system is heavily loaded ?
> What happens now ?
> > What happens if the application dies for
> > some reason ?
> What happens when the kernel oopses? ;->
Such silly responses make me think that it is no longer worth to argue ...