From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755802Ab2CAL4e (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 06:56:34 -0500 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([93.93.135.160]:53242 "EHLO bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751075Ab2CAL4c (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 06:56:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4F4F641E.7000501@collabora.co.uk> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:57:18 +0100 From: Javier Martinez Canillas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: rodrigo.moya@collabora.co.uk, javier@collabora.co.uk, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, lennart@poettering.net, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, alban.crequy@collabora.co.uk, bart.cerneels@collabora.co.uk, sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] af_unix: add multicast and filtering features to AF_UNIX References: <4F4B8C66.5060206@collabora.co.uk> <20120227.140535.1623396420455657443.davem@davemloft.net> <1330426059.2139.21.camel@megeve> <20120228.140558.1132853996225815681.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20120228.140558.1132853996225815681.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/28/2012 08:05 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Rodrigo Moya > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:47:39 +0100 > >> Because of all of this, UDP/IP multicast wasn't even considered as an >> option. We might be wrong in some/all of those, so could you please >> comment on them to check if that's so? > > You guys seem to want something that isn't AF_UNIX, ordering guarentees > and whatnot, it really has no place in these protocols. > > You've designed a userlevel subsystem with requirements that no existing > socket layer can give, and you just figured you'd work that out later. > > I think you rather should have reconsidered these premises and designed > something that could handle reality which is AF_UNIX can't do multicast > and nobody guarentees those strange ordering requirements you seem to > have. Yes, you are right it doesn't follow AF_UNIX semantics so Unix sockets is not the best place to add our multicast implementation. So, now we are trying a different approach. To create a new address family AF_MCAST. That way we can have more control over the semantics of the socket interface for that family. We expect to have some patches in a few days and we will resend. Does this makes more sense to you? Best regards, Javier