On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:22:14 -0800 "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:20:18 -0800 > Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > Would it be too complicated, if sysctl would give the global default, > > > from which one can deviate using RTAX_FEATURE? > > > > Maybe for frto it needs to stay, but sysctl's are more painful and complex > > than keeping the stuff in the routing info. Also, the external tools are > > part of every distro, except for a few embedded systems, the networking code > > depends on user tools already. > > How do you propose to support some kind of "global enable" for features. The easiest way to do that is to initialize each TP with features from sysctl when created. > I think sysctl's support this quite well. The test for the feature > becomes "sysctl || route_attribute". That is what the next version does for FRTO. > Also, as Yoshfuji stated, you absolutely cannot change the existing > sysctl numbers as tools that use the sysctl() system call use those > numbers explicitly thus they are compiled into applications. Okay, what about WESTWOOD? > I really am not going to consider something that removes existing > sysctl tunables. :-) What about tcp_westwood which is new? - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
