Message-ID: <BANLkTin2HaYjHgGACkwvKwuY-Y_e3+r3JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 May 2011 17:32:08 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	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 Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:43:21PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
>> > This all sounds like change for the sake of change to me.  I don't see any
>> > compelling argument for moving bonding (or bridging or vlans, etc) around at
>> > all.  All of these software drivers have feet in multple subsystems, but that
>> > just means that theres not going to be a compelling argument to move them any
>> > place,  at least not without an immediate subsequent argument that it really
>> > belonged back where it was.  Unless you can show a solid benefit to moving the
>> > code, I don't see why any reorganization is needed.
>>
>> Well, as a people who worked on bonding code, I have no problem to know
>> bonding code is under drivers/net/, but for people who don't know this, probably
>> net/ is the first place they want to search.
>>
> you've asked them?
>
> cd git/net-next-2.6
> find . -name '*bond*'

No, somone asked me why bonding is not in net/ and after some thinking,
I see no reasons myself (thus sent this patch).


>> The other similar thing is that pktgen is in net/core/ while netconsole is in
>> drivers/net/, which seems a little strange too.
>>
> Its is, and loopback is in /drivers/net, as is tun-tap and xen-netfront (none of
> which touch actual hardware), as is slip and ppp, which are net drivers, but
> only operate on non net hardware. ppoe is another example which operates on
> ethernet, but sits on top of a secondary physical device (and so has no real
> hardware itself).  These could all arguably be moved to /net, because they have
> no real hardware, but are in drivers because they implement instances of the net
> driver interface.
>
>> vlan vs macvlan is the third example.
>>
> yes, it is, macvlan, like you assert could be moved, but you could just as
> easily move vlan to /drivers because it implements an instance of the net device
> driver interface.

Then I agree here.

>
> The bottom line is, sometimes things aren't black and white, they're gray. And
> we put code where it makes the most sense at the time.  We move it when it
> makes sense to, but I don't hear any compelling argument to make that move.
> Yes, we're not always consistent with where we put hardwareless drivers, but to
> make a policy and shove everything to one place or another doesn't any more
> sense.  If we do that we either wind up with things that we think of as drivers
> in the /net directory, or we wind up with stuff thats really protocol oriented
> in the /drivers directory.  And if the major problem we solve by doing so is
> making life easier for someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to find said code
> with a quick grep or find operation, it really doesn't seem like its worthwhile
> to me
>

Well, the problem is our code organisation, if we could organize the code
in a better way that would help grepping the code.

>> In short, there are three callers of netdev_rx_handler_register(), macvlan,
>> bonding and bridge, only bridge code stays in net/ directory.
> Why is calling netdev_rx_handler_register a gating factor here?
>

I don't think other drivers are supposed to use this function to register
a packet handler, which is an important difference from my view.
--
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