netdev - Re: [RFC Patch] bonding: move to net/ directory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTi=UCH8+ZVFwZ96YvFuDqDLwq8ihkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 May 2011 20:32:43 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] bonding: move to net/ directory

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:00:23PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:45:14PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> >> Hello, Jay, Andy,
>> >>
>> >> Is there any peculiar reason that bonding code has to stay
>> >> in drivers/net/ directory?
>> >>
>> >> Since bonding and bridge are somewhat similar, both of
>> >> which are used to "bond" two or more devices into one,
>> >> and bridge code is already in net/bridge/, so I think it also
>> >> makes sense to move bonding code into net/bonding/ too.
>> >>
>> >> This could also help to grep the source more easily. :)
>> >>
>> >> What do you think about the patch below?
>> >> (Note, this patch is against net-next-2.6.)
>> >>
>> >
>> > I would rather keep the code for bonding in drivers/net since it is
>> > really a pure device (though not directly tied to any specific
>> > hardware) rather than a device + forwarding or management code.
>>
>> Is this a reason strong enough to leave it to drivers/net/ ?
>> I think it is generic enough to be moved to net/ directory... :-/
>>
>
> I think the distinction is an important one and is one of the main
> reasons why I would like to see bonding stay in drivers/net.
>

Is this a rule that we judge if a piece of code should be in net/
or drivers/net/ ? For me, that big difference between these
two directory is clearly if the code is generic or hardware/platform
independent.

>> >
>> > It has bothered me for a long time that the code just to manage the VLAN
>> > and bridge devices sits outside of drivers/net, but I've never proposed
>> > a patch to move the files as I suspect the maintainers of that code
>> > would like to keep it all together.  Maybe it is time to do that.
>> >
>>
>> You mean move net/8021q/ to drivers/net/8021q/ ?
>>
>
> No.  I'm talking about the parts in the bridging and vlan code that
> specifically setup devices, not all of the code.  I would be happier
> if code that created objects of type net_device_ops all lived in
> drivers/net.  Then all the drivers (real, stacked, or virtual) are in
> the same place.

This would make grepping the source code more harder
than it is, at least now we can grepping all bridge source code
in net/bridge/, for example.

Actually the vlan case you mentioned can be another example
to show that to moving bonding code into net/ makes sense.
--
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