On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 06:29, Hen, Shmulik wrote:
> >
>
> Not sure I fully understood the concerns above, but I'll try
> to explain what the change was all about.
>
I think it wasnt the one specific change rather a few posted that i
spent a minute or two staring at. And you confirm my suspicion below.
[..]
>
> In the lonf term, the drive is to move any *smart* code done in
> the config application into the driver itself and be left with
> the smallest, most compact application as possible. This is the
> trend we've seen in the VLAN config app, and the bridge module.
> All the "brain" is in the kernel module and very little should be
> done in the application.
I am not very familiar with the bonding code although i think you guys
have been doing very good work since you got involved.
In any case the approach you state above is wrong. Actually Stephen
Hemminger and I discussed this for bridging. Post 2.6 he is going to
remove a lot of the bridge policy (or "brain" as you call it) out of the
kernel. Netlink for kernel<->userspace not /proc. I think we should head
towards that direction so we can have more sophisticated management.
Thoughts?
cheers,
jamal
|