Julius Volz wrote:
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.
Great.
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.
Usually its not acceptable. Why do you have compile ipvsadm
for specific kernel versions?
--
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
