Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] the overdue removal of ip{,6}_queue

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] the overdue removal of ip{,6}_queue

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:42:50PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Maybe we should add a printk ('app foo is using obsolete ip_queue
> > system').
> 
> Good idea, that will probably help speed it up. But I still think
> we need to give them at least another six month.

ok. I'll prepare a patch for both the printk and the update of
feature-removal-schedule.

> I think we need to do two things:
> 
> - make libipq_compat a drop-in replacement that doesn't require
>   recompilation

libipq is not distributed as a shared library (at least not by us), so I
don't see any purpose for doing so.  Do you think anyone is going to
re-link statically linked code against the new lib

> - make it work with both ipq and nfnetlink_queue

that should be possible, though.  

I still don't really think that it is worth all the effort, especially
since there is only one hand full of applications using libipq.

The backwards compatibility library is expected to perform a lot worse
thna both the old libipq as well as the new native libnetfilter_queue
due to additional data copies, etc.  When I wrote it, it was more
intended as some intermediate aid, something that helps while people
migrate.  We shouldn't make it too perfect, otherwise they won't migrate
at all.

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] the overdue removal of ip{,6}_queue

[Patrick McHardy]

Harald Welte wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 04:42:50PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>I think we need to do two things:
>>
>>- make libipq_compat a drop-in replacement that doesn't require
>>  recompilation
> 
> 
> libipq is not distributed as a shared library (at least not by us), so I
> don't see any purpose for doing so.  Do you think anyone is going to
> re-link statically linked code against the new lib

I wasn't aware of that. That makes it even worse, old applications
will break and we can't do anything about it. I think this is
normally considered not acceptable.