From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:42:09 +0200 Message-ID: <48501C81.6010800@trash.net> References: <1213204329-10973-1-git-send-email-juliusv@google.com> <48500A0D.5020304@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Julius Volz Cc: lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Julius Volz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> I briefly looked over the patches I didn't comment on. >> I think there's too much duplication everywhere, a lot of >> them look like they could avoid almost all duplication by >> handling differences at a higher layer or simply sharing >> the code (like hashing). > > Yes, the duplication is high unfortunately. I must admit that I didn't > feel secure enough to restructure all the existing code without > breaking it, so I copied lots of functions and modified them for IPv6. > My main goal was to keep all the old v4 stuff working first and then > remove the duplication later (or hope for smarter people). > > So I obviously don't expect this to be ready for inclusion, but I will > have a lot of time to work on it (I'm doing it as an intern project) > and learn as long as I get good feedback like yours on what to > improve. Great. > Another question I was unsure about: is the breaking of the > userspace-to-kernel interface even acceptable at all? I think the code > would get ugly (and have even more duplication) if you wanted to keep > the backwards compatibility. And you have to compile ipvsadm for your > kernel version anyways. Usually its not acceptable. Why do you have compile ipvsadm for specific kernel versions?