From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: [rfc] Merging the Open vSwitch datapath Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:54:10 -0700 Message-ID: <20100831005410.GB30129@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <20100830062755.GA22396@verge.net.au> <87k4n8ow1r.fsf@benpfaff.org> <43F901BD926A4E43B106BF17856F0755F63A08EE@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com> <20100830183328.GI7629@nicira.com> <43F901BD926A4E43B106BF17856F0755F63A092B@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com> <20100830205907.GM30129@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20100831004827.GE11594@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Wright , "Rose, Gregory V" , Ben Pfaff , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Jesse Gross , Stephen Hemminger , Herbert Xu , Arnd Bergmann , David Miller To: Simon Horman Return-path: Received: from sous-sol.org ([216.99.217.87]:52138 "EHLO sequoia.sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756385Ab0HaAz1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:55:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100831004827.GE11594@verge.net.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * 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