netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interf

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bonding] Add basic support for dynamic configuration of bond interfaces
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12 Jan 2004 08:51:02 -0500
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, amir.noam@xxxxxxxxx, bonding-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040112133816.57993f44.ak@suse.de>
Organization: jamalopolis
References: <E6F7D288B394A64585E67497E5126BA601F991D1@hasmsx403.iil.intel.com> <200401111628.07930.amir.noam@intel.com> <4001A667.2020904@pobox.com> <4001C158.6040103@candelatech.com> <4001C72E.8030108@pobox.com> <20040112133816.57993f44.ak@suse.de>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Andi,
Can you point to specifics that break 64 bit emulation so we can avoid
them?
I have to admit the pf_key interaction is relatively unorthrodox but
looked fine.
What are the things you will perform surgery on?

cheers,
jamal

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 07:38, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:10 -0500
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > ioctls are a pain for 32/64-bit emulation layers too.  It seems much 
> > easier to define a netlink protocol family of some sort and communicate 
> > that way.
> 
> Actually that's not true. netlink is far worse for emulation layers when you
> break the protocol. e.g. the current ipsec/pf_key protocol is not compatible
> on x86-64 and it is near impossible to fix it without major surgery.
> With ioctls it would be far easier to fixbecause the infrastructure for 
> emulation
> is already there.
> 
> -Andi
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>