From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: RFC: net 00/05: routing based send-to-self implementation Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:23:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20091130202328.GU14610@kvack.org> References: <20091130175529.7555.10132.sendpatchset@x2.localnet> <4B141EFB.4070409@candelatech.com> <20091130200430.GS14610@kvack.org> <4B1427ED.6070808@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([205.233.56.17]:57100 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752274AbZK3UXW (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:23:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B1427ED.6070808@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:15:41PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > That still sounds more complicated than the proposed routing table changes, True. I agree that being able to accept self-addressed packets via a sysctl can be useful. > at least for my application. Since I also want to gather stats, set/watch > routes, > etc, on each network device, would I have to keep a thread and netlink > socket > running in each name-space in order to see the various devices? Yes. My l2tp daemon is still single threaded internally, so it uses an rpc through the threads to open UDP, netlink and L2TP sockets, then manages everything from the main event loop. The thread has to be kept around to keep the namespace's task id alive in case one wants to move anything in/out of the namespace. -ben