On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I briefly looked over the patches I didn't comment on. > I think there's too much duplication everywhere, a lot of > them look like they could avoid almost all duplication by > handling differences at a higher layer or simply sharing > the code (like hashing). Yes, the duplication is high unfortunately. I must admit that I didn't feel secure enough to restructure all the existing code without breaking it, so I copied lots of functions and modified them for IPv6. My main goal was to keep all the old v4 stuff working first and then remove the duplication later (or hope for smarter people). So I obviously don't expect this to be ready for inclusion, but I will have a lot of time to work on it (I'm doing it as an intern project) and learn as long as I get good feedback like yours on what to improve. Another question I was unsure about: is the breaking of the userspace-to-kernel interface even acceptable at all? I think the code would get ugly (and have even more duplication) if you wanted to keep the backwards compatibility. And you have to compile ipvsadm for your kernel version anyways. Julius -- Google Switzerland GmbH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
