Re: [rfc] Merging the Open vSwitch datapath

[Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>]

* Simon Horman (horms@verge.net.au) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 01:59:07PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Rose, Gregory V (gregory.v.rose@intel.com) wrote:
> > > >From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:blp@nicira.com]
> > > >On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:26:17AM -0700, Rose, Gregory V wrote:
> > > >> I just want to put in a plug for the netlink interface.  For NICs with
> > > >> EVB we'll need it.
> > > >
> > > >Off-hand, the main reasons to use Netlink, instead of the existing
> > > >character device interface, are that Netlink is easier to extend and
> > > >that it should reduce or eliminate the 32-to-64 bit compat layer
> > > >currently in the Open vSwitch tree.
> > 
> > That, plus it's a typical way to do network configuration.  Esp. with
> > bi-directional communication.  So the userspace bit both listens to
> > netlink messages, like any of the routing daemons or lldpad or similar
> > do, and sends netlink messasges to update driver's flow table.
> > 
> > BTW, this kind of discussion was why Herbert felt strongly against
> > drivers/staging/.  He wanted to be sure the interfaces were well-defined
> > first.
> 
> Is the implication that there is a preference for finalising
> the interface (as much as that is possible) before merging?

I'll let Herbert chime in, just reminder that was his thought earlier
this month at LinuxCon.

thanks,
-chris