From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Rough VJ Channel Implementation - vj_core.patch Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060426.230812.13989689.davem@davemloft.net> References: <54AD0F12E08D1541B826BE97C98F99F143AEE0@NT-SJCA-0751.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jeff@garzik.org, kelly@au1.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:6294 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964946AbWD0GIi (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:08:38 -0400 To: caitlinb@broadcom.com In-Reply-To: <54AD0F12E08D1541B826BE97C98F99F143AEE0@NT-SJCA-0751.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: "Caitlin Bestler" Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:02:43 -0700 > Would it be reasonable to state that a net channel carrying > SYNs should not be set up when the consumer is a user mode > process? I'm currently assuming that the protocol processing is still done in the kernel on behalf of the user context, so the issues you raise really aren't relevant. We really shouldn't be jumping the gun so far into the implementation as others seem to be doing. Let's do it simple first and see if putting things all the way to userspace even is necessary. No work is going to get done if we keep carrying on like this over details we really do not need to consider right away.