[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:41:54 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/5] Network Drop Monitor: Add netlink protocol
identifer
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:04:57PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 02:00:54PM -0500, Neil Horman (nhorman@...driver.com) wrote:
> > Because this is its own protocol. I could have used NETLINK_GENERIC I suppose,
> > but this is a feature that, if used is going to be commonly built into the
> > kernel, I see no need to add an additional step of making userspace search for a
> > protocol registered to NETLINK_GENERIC when we dont need to. In other words,
> > why not define my own protocol?
>
> genetlink is alwats built into the kernel, there are access libraries
> helpers and there is really no userspace overhead. It was really
> specially designed for this kind of the tasks to eliminate netlink
> internal structure access and provide simple high-level interface.
>
Not really about performance overhead in my view, its about programming
overhead. Its just more work, and without any really tangible gain IMO. Could
I use it? Sure, but I don't really get any particular benefit out of doing so,
and from the kernel standpoint, it makes no difference either, except that its
one more header to parse before I get to my data. I guess it just boils down to
choice for me
Neil
> --
> Evgeniy Polyakov
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists