> > 1. First of all is such a patch adding a new command something desirable and > > could it possibly be merged or should I just drop it? > > It depends on its complexity, are you changing > the ipvsadm -S code or just the kernel part? Thank you for the fast reply! Just the kernel part for now and some crude standalone benchmarking code, although I intend to also change the ipvsadm -S code to use this new cmd if available. > > 2. I can see that besides the generic netlink interface there's also another > > interface based on getsockopt options, should the patch also add a new socket > > option or is it okay for this new functionality to be exclusive to generic > > netlink? > > No, sockopt is old interface and it is not changed, > it lacks IPv6 support, etc. Great. > > 3. Should this go forward, any advice on my next steps? Should I simply send the > > patch here? > > You can post it with [PATCH RFC] tag, so that we > can see how do you mix services and destinations in same > packet. You can also add speed comparison after the --- line > for more information. I'll do that and we can discuss further then. Thanks a lot for your time! Regards -- Cezar Sá Espinola
