Re: Request for an ARPHRD_

Re: Request for an ARPHRD_

[Daniele Orlandi]

On Monday 24 October 2005 18:07, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> ETH_P_* is managed by the IEEE (part of the ethernet standard) You would
> need to ask them.

I need a pseudo protocol like it is already done for some internal protocol, 
e.g.:

/*
 *      Non DIX types. Won't clash for 1500 types.
 */
[.....]
#define ETH_P_WAN_PPP   0x0007          /* Dummy type for WAN PPP frames*/
#define ETH_P_PPP_MP    0x0008          /* Dummy type for PPP MP frames */
#define ETH_P_LOCALTALK 0x0009          /* Localtalk pseudo type        */
#define ETH_P_PPPTALK   0x0010          /* Dummy type for Atalk over PPP*/
[....]

> Normally Linux doesn't pre-allocate ABIs for out of tree code, mostly
> because it is not guaranteed that the interface won't change there.

Could you clarify? What interface do you fear that could change?

My main concern is that without an ARPHRD_ constant guaranteed to be unique I 
wouldn't be able to propose a patch for libpcap people to map the (already 
allocated) DLT_ to the correct ARPHRD_.

Bye,

-- 
  Daniele Orlandi

Re: Request for an ARPHRD_

[Lennert Buytenhek]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:33:04PM +0200, Daniele Orlandi wrote:

> My main concern is that without an ARPHRD_ constant guaranteed to be
> unique I wouldn't be able to propose a patch for libpcap people to map
> the (already allocated) DLT_ to the correct ARPHRD_.

First get your code in the kernel, then submit the patch to libpcap.


--L

Re: Request for an ARPHRD_

[Daniele Orlandi]

On Monday 24 October 2005 23:51, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
>
> First get your code in the kernel, then submit the patch to libpcap.

Hopefully I will but currently vISDN is not mature enough to be evaluated for 
kernel inclusion.

I would like to keep it out of the tree while it matures, however I would also 
like to avoid potential constants clashes with outher/future code.

You may see the constants allocation as the first step to include that code in 
the kernel.

Bye,

-- 
  Daniele Orlandi

Re: Request for an ARPHRD_

[Lennert Buytenhek]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:08:09AM +0200, Daniele Orlandi wrote:

> > First get your code in the kernel, then submit the patch to libpcap.
> 
> Hopefully I will but currently vISDN is not mature enough to be
> evaluated for kernel inclusion.
> 
> I would like to keep it out of the tree while it matures, however I
> would also like to avoid potential constants clashes with outher/future
> code.
> 
> You may see the constants allocation as the first step to include that
> code in the kernel.

Your code might never end up in the kernel at all, for example if you
ever lose interest in it.  The situation that we'd like to avoid is
ending up with reserved constants for code that was never submitted
upstream at all.


cheers,
Lennert

Re: Request for an ARPHRD_

[Daniele Orlandi]

On Tuesday 25 October 2005 00:22, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
>
> Your code might never end up in the kernel at all, for example if you
> ever lose interest in it.  The situation that we'd like to avoid is
> ending up with reserved constants for code that was never submitted
> upstream at all.

Okay, I see your point.

IMHO I'd have preferred a more open politic like libpcap's. There may be valid 
reasons to keep code out of the tree and this makes maintenance even harder 
to perform than it already is.

Thanks anyway,

Bye,

-- 
  Daniele Orlandi

Re: Request for an ARPHRD_

[Andi Kleen]

On Monday 24 October 2005 23:33, Daniele Orlandi wrote:

> 
> > Normally Linux doesn't pre-allocate ABIs for out of tree code, mostly
> > because it is not guaranteed that the interface won't change there.
> 
> Could you clarify? What interface do you fear that could change?

Any interface implemented by your out of tree code for which you're
requesting to reserve constants.

-Andi