Harald Welte wrote:
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 08:25:39PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I guess I'll make it fail in netlink_create
after failed module load then.
sounds fine with me. However, we can then also remove NETLINK_USERSOCK,
since IMHO it was intended for exac
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 08:25:39PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I guess I'll make it fail in netlink_create
> after failed module load then.
sounds fine with me. However, we can then also remove NETLINK_USERSOCK,
since IMHO it was intended for exactly this mode of oper
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:46:30PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
part on top of netlink). Right now there are none, so this won't cause
any trouble, the question is if we want to retain the possibility or
just don't care about this case.
I'd say that as it is general use of
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-08-08 21:49
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:46:30PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > part on top of netlink). Right now there are none, so this won't cause
> > any trouble, the question is if we want to retain the possibility or
> > just don't care about this
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:46:30PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
> part on top of netlink). Right now there are none, so this won't cause
> any trouble, the question is if we want to retain the possibility or
> just don't care about this case.
I'd say that as it is general use of netlink between
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 11:52:08AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but this is not the problem. There is no user of netlink_broadcast
>>which sends to multiple groups. The problem is that binding to groups
>>is possible before a kernel socket
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 11:52:08AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:03:44AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, the patches are almost ready but I could use some ideas
> >>for one remaining p
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:03:44AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
>>Yes, the patches are almost ready but I could use some ideas
>>for one remaining problem. The idea was that a subsystem which
>>sends broadcast messages can specify how many groups
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:03:44AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Thomas Graf wrote:
> >Anyways, your idea of having 32bit identifiers rather than a
> >bitmask makes sense to me, however I think we should not lose
> >the ability to do multicasting for event notifications so we
Thomas Graf wrote:
Anyways, your idea of having 32bit identifiers rather than a
bitmask makes sense to me, however I think we should not lose
the ability to do multicasting for event notifications so we
might need a slightly more complex solution. I guess Patrick
is taking care of this though.
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:50:22PM +0200, Thomas Graf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-08-07 15:19
> > On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:12:19PM +0200, Thomas Graf ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > wrote:
> > > I don't get this, you introduce a new option which basically
> >
* Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-08-07 15:19
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:12:19PM +0200, Thomas Graf ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > I don't get this, you introduce a new option which basically
> > changes the subscription schema from a bitmask to a single
> > identifier. I don't see a
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:12:19PM +0200, Thomas Graf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-07-29 14:45
> > Subscription is a netlink socket option, which, if enabled, ends up
> > in direct message delivering, but not multicast one.
>
> I don't get this, you intr
* Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-07-29 14:45
> Subscription is a netlink socket option, which, if enabled, ends up
> in direct message delivering, but not multicast one.
I don't get this, you introduce a new option which basically
changes the subscription schema from a bitmask to a sing
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> As Patrik mentioned, it was not on the top of his TODO list,
> so some discussion about possible directions will not hurt any
> development process.
I'm still working on it, I hope to be able to post some code and some
comments on your code tonight.
-
To unsubscribe fro
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 12:23:05PM +0200, Harald Welte ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 02:45:32PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > Bcc: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [RFC] Netlink subscription/multicasting.
> > Reply-To: [EMAI
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 02:45:32PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Bcc: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC] Netlink subscription/multicasting.
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hello, developers.
>
> Here is some thoughts about netlink subscription/
Bcc: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [RFC] Netlink subscription/multicasting.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello, developers.
Here is some thoughts about netlink subscription/multicasting/group
number.
Attached [only compile tested] patch implements two socket options
for n
18 matches
Mail list logo
