From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: net-2.6.25-netns branch on git.openvz.org Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:31:48 +0100 Message-ID: <473C4A44.4040406@fr.ibm.com> References: <473C35F1.9030901@sw.ru> <473C4301.6060507@fr.ibm.com> <473C48F0.3010909@sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <473C48F0.3010909-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Denis V. Lunev" Cc: Linux Containers , "Eric W. Biederman" , Pavel Emelianov List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Denis V. Lunev wrote: > Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>> Hi, All! >>> >>> I have ported what is ready to send to netdev to 2.6.25 and created >>> appropriate branches on git.openvz.org, namely >>> - net-2.6.25 aka Miller's 2.6.25 tree >>> - net-2.6.25-netns with ready patches >> resyncing ... thanks :) >> >> I will send in a few moments a first round for ipv6 taking into account >> ip6_fib. >> >> There some other pending patches I will send, I hope before the end of >> the week. >> >> I am a little lost with what we want to send for net-2.6.25. I mean we >> planned to send af_unix, af_packet, af_netlink, af_inet and af_inet6. > > I think that should behave like a small squaw eating the bear. Right now > we _can_ send netlink preparatory work + PF_UNIX + PF_PACKET. This code > is ready, functional and complete. Let's send it now to reduce amount of > work for maintaining. Agree. >> What is the level of functionnality we want to provide with ipv4 and >> ipv6. For example we have addresss autoconfiguration for ipv6, shall we >> send it ? > > after that, we can continue the work. I think that we can send all > remaining IPv4 code after while in this cycle. The code has been > significantly changed and porting/splitting/re-splitting takes longer > than I have expected. All sysctl/sysfs handling is out of scope for me > now and, I think, Dave is not a right person to accept this code. > > It will be very good if we'll have functional IPv4 in this kernel. All > other staff looks like a pure bonus. At least we should test and > stabilize it. The problem I have with ipv6 is that is sharing code with ipv4 namespace like net/core/neigh.c. So it is difficult to test ipv6 namespace without that. Can I help with ipv4 ?