| To: | johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 20 May 2005 07:42:47 -0400 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxx, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1116571178.21310.124.camel@uganda> |
| Organization: | unknown |
| References: | <20050518222729.007887b8.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <1116484313.21310.78.camel@uganda> <20050518234552.4aef6d02.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20050519.114425.18307286.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1116571178.21310.124.camel@uganda> |
| Reply-to: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2005-20-05 at 10:39 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > I just want to note, that if you want message bus, you require > at least oppsite direction, and thus input callback, and > either several socket number for each user [kobject, audit, iscsi, > xfrm - all they implement what connector already does] or > some header and thus parser in input callback, and thus > some registration mechanism. But if you are given your own ID, there should no issues, correct? i.e it will be no different than say rtnetlink. Users would still have to subscribe to topics etc, but thats something you already handle. IOW, Iam hoping you are not resorting to a single socket with some user space mux to do filtering. cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | IPv6 Tunneling (reverse tunnel need), Felix Fischer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: sendmsg ignoring bind?, Wichert Akkerman |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem, Evgeniy Polyakov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem, Evgeniy Polyakov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |