[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target)
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Oct 2004 08:19:54 -0400
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lmb@xxxxxxx, ahu@xxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20041022113939.GA812@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <E1CKkWZ-0005x5-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1098444579.1112.66.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041022113939.GA812@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 07:39, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:29:39AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> > 
> > Evgeniy Polyakov(aka mr. Sean Paul) posted code a while back for
> > something that uses netlink that he calls  "kernel Konnector". I think
> That patch puts the ID in each message, right?

Yes, the ID is necessary for "routing" the message. Remember this is for
a messaging subsystem so you cant avoid having something that is in the
packet that is used to find where to go next.
I was suggesting also messaging by name.

> That would mean paying the lookup cost for each message rather than
> once when you create the socket.

Take a look at the patch. See how it can be made better.
Evgeniy, Do you have something new to post?


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