[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150502115443.2f89736e@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 11:54:43 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: brouer@...hat.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Robert Olsson <robert@...julf.net>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] pktgen: introduce 'rx' mode
On Sat, 02 May 2015 11:44:45 +0200
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> Hi Jesper,
>
> On 05/02/2015 10:46 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> ...
> > First of all I love the idea of modifying pktgen to performance test
> > the RX path.
> >
> > I'm not sure the simple "rx" flag is a good "name". It likely
> > conflicts with other work where pktgen can receive it own packets, e.g.
> > https://people.kth.se/~danieltt/pktgen/ or Ben Greer's solution.
>
> Why do we start caring about out of tree code now? We never have,
> really. If there is no interest in merging this stuff upstream,
> then it's always the case that _their code_ needs to adapt iff you
> want to run on a more recent kernel; the kernel dictates the uapi,
> not some out of tree module. ;)
Sure, out-of-tree code should not control our choices.
I personally just don't like the "RX" flag name.
What about "STACK_RX" or "RX_INJECT"?
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
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