On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:18:46 -0500
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday 11 April 2005 07:59, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > /*****************************************/
> > Kernel Connector.
> > /*****************************************/
> >
> > Kernel connector - new netlink based userspace <-> kernel space easy to use
> > communication module.
> >
>
> Hi Evgeniy,
Hello, Dmitriy.
> I have looked at the connector implementation one more time and I think
> it can be improved in the following ways:
>
> - drop unneeded refcounting;
It is already.
> - start only one workqueue entry instead of one for every callback type;
There is only one queue per callback device.
> - drop cn_dev - there is only one connector;
There may be several connectors with different socket types.
I use it in my environment for tests.
> - simplify cn_notify_request to carry only one range - it simplifies code
> quite a bit - nothing stops clientd from sending several notification
> requests;
? Nothing stops clients from sending several notification requests now.
I do not see how it simplifies the things?
Feel free to set idx_num and val_num to 1 and you will have the same.
> - implement internal queuefor callbacks so we are not at mercy of scheduler;
Current implementation has big warning about such theoretical behaviour,
if it will be triggered, I will fix that behaviour,
more likely not by naive work allocation - there might be
at least cache/memory pool or something...
> - admit that SKBs are message medium and do not mess up with passing around
> destructor functions.
You mess up layers.
I do not see why you want it.
> - In callback notifier switch to using GFP_KERNEL since it can sleep just
> fine;
Yes, it is correct
> - more...
>
> Because there were a lot of changes I decided against doing relative patch
> but instead a replacement patch for affected files. I have cut out cbus and
> documentation to keep it smaller so it will be easier to review. The patch
> is compile-tested only.
Connector with your changes just does not work.
Dmitry, I do not understand why do you change things in so radical manner,
especially when there are no 1. new interesting features, 2. no performance
improvements, 3. no right design changes.
> BTW, I do not think that "All rights reserved" statement is applicable/
> compatible with GPL this software is supposedly released under, I have
> taken liberty of removing this statement.
You substitute license agreements with copyright.
"All rights reserved" is targeted to copyright
(avtorskoe pravo, zakon N 5351/1-1) of the code
and has nothing with license.
Evgeniy Polyakov
Only failure makes us experts. -- Theo de Raadt
|