On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:19:59PM -0400, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > > 2) simplicity and reliability: you are downplaying the overhead and > synchronization necessary (potentially among multiple processes!) to simply > receive a response, but it is still enormous compared to the single syscall > case. Even worse, netlink(7) says "netlink is not a reliable protocol. ... > but may drop messages". Would you accept such a mechanism to transfer "write > data to file" operations? "Compress data using AES" is much more similar to > "write data to file" than to "change this aspect of kernel routing > configuration" - it is an application-level service, not a way to communicate > long-term parameters to a pretty independent subsystem residing in the kernel.
That just shows you have no idea how netlink works. The reliability comment is in the context of congestion control, and does not apply in this case. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
