[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294784609.18562.4.camel@wall-e>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:23:29 +0100
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
shemminger@...tta.com, jj@...osbits.net, daniel.baluta@...il.com,
jochen@...hen.org, hagen@...u.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
pavel@....cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new UDPCP Communication Protocol
Am Dienstag, den 11.01.2011, 22:46 +0100 schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> Le mardi 11 janvier 2011 à 22:41 +0100, Stefani Seibold a écrit :
>
> > Second, the design is may in your opinion poor. I like it. What is
> > really poor is the kernel_...() socket functions, which are only simple
> > wrapper of the system calls without any performance improvement, skb
> > support and memory saving.
> >
>
> The only thing you want is to have a callback to your own code to
> deliver an decapsulated skb to your state machine.
>
> Take a look at other layers on top of UDP
>
> (L2TP comes to mind)
>
I have looked on it. And it will not work since UDPCP is UDP. And so
IPPROTO_UDP (17) is still handled by the UDP handler.
Despite this it will also make no sense to rewrite the whole UDP socket
layer.
The only thing i have found with comes near to my requirements is the
rxrpc module, but i see no real different to my solution.
--
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