From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Add PGM protocol support to the IP stack Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:43:21 +0200 Message-ID: <20100329214321.GI20695@one.firstfloor.org> References: <87tysccjrn.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20100322163609.GZ20695@one.firstfloor.org> <877hp4i76d.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20100322185310.GA20695@one.firstfloor.org> <20100327131138.GD20695@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:58308 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754101Ab0C2Vn0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:43:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:00:57AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:33:07PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > Here is a pgm.7 manpage describing how the socket API could look like for > > > a PGM implementation. > > > > > > I dumped the RM_* based socket options from the other OS since most of the > > > options were unusable. > > > > I did a quick read and the manpage/interface seem reasonable to me. > > Thanks. I will then proceed to get a patch out that implements the > network environment. Then we can plug the openpgm logic in there. You might still need some reviewing from network maintainers. > > > You changed the parameter struct fields to lower case. While > > that looks definitely more Linuxy than before does it mean programs > > have to #ifdef this? It might be good idea to have at least some > > optional compat header that #defines. > > The socket API will be completely different. The basic handling of the > sockets is the same (binding, listening, connecting). There is no way of > mapping M$ socket options to Linux socket options with the approach that > I proposed in the manpage. The stats structure is different too since some > key elements were missing. Ok. > > What users are there of the M$ api? I have seen vendors supplying their > own pgm implementation (guess due to bit rot in the old M$ > implementation). I don't know, it was just a general consideration. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.