From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Goff Subject: Re: PIM-SM namespace changes Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:28:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20090601202834.GA27821@boeing.com> References: <20090518.222429.135907168.davem@davemloft.net> <20090520004344.GA10143@boeing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.96.56]:37609 "EHLO stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752381AbZFAU2n (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:28:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090520004344.GA10143@boeing.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 05:43:44PM -0700, Tom Goff wrote: > > Some bugs to fix before I can apply these Tom. > ... > > Also we need to seriously discuss how now we unconditionally > > register the PIM protocols. Before we had a policy of only > > doing so conditionally, and that's a change that needs to > > be carefully considered and discussed. > > Thanks for the feedback, I think the patch below includes proper error > handling. > > For protocol registration I see three basic approaches for using PIM > with namespaces: > > - unconditionally add PIM when multicast routing is initialized > (maybe only ifdef CONFIG_NET_NS, otherwise preserve the current > behavior) > > - keep a count of the number of namespaces that have enabled PIM and > add/delete PIM when transitioning from/to zero > > - make all or some protocol registration per network namespace > > There are obviously tradeoffs and I would appreciate any > comments/suggestions on alternatives that allow namespace use of > dynamically enabled protocols. > [patch omitted] Any further thoughts on handling PIM/namespace interaction? Tom