On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:33:27PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: >> Ok, my first impression is that genetlink is aimed at being simple to >> use (and has a nice howto). >> >> So we'll work on a genetlink interface and some of the other v6 patch >> issues and then post again in a while. Thanks for the feedback! >> >> Horms: ping if you're interested or have some good ideas for this. > > Julius: pong > > The main two problems that I see in the existing interface are > a) lack of extendibility (which is why we are here) and; > b) non-idempotent actions, especially adding and deleting > real servers, which mean that user-space programs that > manipulate ipvsadm have have extra (racy) logic. > (ok, perhaps that is more a pet peeve than a problem). Ok, so we probably won't focus on b) as a priority right now, unless it happens as a side-effect. > I don't really have any concrete ideas about what a better > interface would look like. But I am more than happy to hash our ideas. Good! At the moment I'm looking at various netlink docs and figuring out how things generally work. I think netlink probably adds a lot of complexity over the previous sockopt interface, but I hope it's worth it. As for compatibility and extensibility, how is that best achieved with netlink? I've seen some examples copy whole C structs into netlink datagrams, but that is obviously what we don't want anymore. So the way to go seems to be to transfer each struct field as a separate netlink attribute, right? 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
