From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shmulik Hen Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] Re: [SET 2][PATCH 2/8][bonding] Propagating master'ssettings toslaves Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:03:15 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <200308121703.15567.shmulik.hen@intel.com> References: Reply-To: shmulik.hen@intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: , , , Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" , In-Reply-To: Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 12 August 2003 04:08 pm, David S. Miller wrote: > Policy belongs strictly at user space. Regarding bonding, what policies are we talking about ? run-time ? config time ? both ? other ? Our current aim is config time only. > One of the great things about what Jamal spends his time working > on is finally a strict seperation of the control layer from > everything else. And part of this is moving all of the control > logic into userspace. Once that is accomplished, I can have my > toilet flush every time a TCP packet is routed through my system > and this won't crap up the kernel. What scope are we talking about here ? 2.4 ? 2.6 ? 2.7 ? other ? Our current aim is 2.4 and 2.6. Taking into account the two statements I made above: Do you think that what we're doing right now might interfere with what Jamal is suggesting ? Wouldn't it be possible to do things the old way first and than convert everything to the new way ? Shouldn't all this be a part of a totally new project like "bonding2" -- | Shmulik Hen Advanced Network Services | | Israel Design Center, Jerusalem | | LAN Access Division, Platform Networking | | Intel Communications Group, Intel corp. |