Denis V. Lunev wrote:
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Denis V. Lunev wrote:
Hi, All!
I have ported what is ready to send to netdev to 2.6.25 and created
appropriate branches on git.openvz.org, namely
- net-2.6.25 aka Miller's 2.6.25 tree
- net-2.6.25-netns with ready patches
resyncing ... thanks :)
I will send in a few moments a first round for ipv6 taking into account
ip6_fib.
There some other pending patches I will send, I hope before the end of
the week.
I am a little lost with what we want to send for net-2.6.25. I mean we
planned to send af_unix, af_packet, af_netlink, af_inet and af_inet6.
I think that should behave like a small squaw eating the bear. Right now
we _can_ send netlink preparatory work + PF_UNIX + PF_PACKET. This code
is ready, functional and complete. Let's send it now to reduce amount of
work for maintaining.
Agree.
What is the level of functionnality we want to provide with ipv4 and
ipv6. For example we have addresss autoconfiguration for ipv6, shall we
send it ?
after that, we can continue the work. I think that we can send all
remaining IPv4 code after while in this cycle. The code has been
significantly changed and porting/splitting/re-splitting takes longer
than I have expected. All sysctl/sysfs handling is out of scope for me
now and, I think, Dave is not a right person to accept this code.
It will be very good if we'll have functional IPv4 in this kernel. All
other staff looks like a pure bonus. At least we should test and
stabilize it.
The problem I have with ipv6 is that is sharing code with ipv4 namespace
like net/core/neigh.c. So it is difficult to test ipv6 namespace without
that.
Can I help with ipv4 ?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
