On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
I'll do it as soon as possible.
I am sorry if I was misunderstood.
I did not want any "facilitator", nor I wanted to keep my code outside
the kernel, on the contrary.
It is perfectly okay for me to provide the entire code for inclusion.
The purposes of my message were the following:
- I wanted to introduce the idea and say to the linux kernel community
that a team is working on it.
- Address family: is it okay to send a patch that add a new AF?
is there a "AF registry" somewhere? (like the device major/minor
registry or the well-known port assignment for TCP-IP).
- Hook: we have two different options. We can add another grabbing
inline function like those used by the bridge and macvlan or we can
design a grabbing service registration facility. Which one is preferrable?
The former is simpler, the latter is more elegant but it requires some
changes in the kernel bridge code.
So the former choice is between less-invasive,safer,inelegant, the
latter is more-invasive,less safe,elegant.
We need a bit of time to stabilize the code: deeply testing the existing
features and implementing some more ideas we have on it.
In the meanwhile we would be grateful if the community could kindly ask to the
questions above.
renzo
--
