From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Add PGM protocol support to the IP stack
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:00:57 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003290952410.14606@router.home>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003181245050.23010@router.home> <87tysccjrn.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003220916170.15360@router.home> <20100322163609.GZ20695@one.firstfloor.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003221146260.17230@router.home>
 <877hp4i76d.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003221300180.17230@router.home> <20100322185310.GA20695@one.firstfloor.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003261231410.30253@router.home> <20100327131138.GD20695@one.firstfloor.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from nlpi129.sbcis.sbc.com ([207.115.36.143]:52926 "EHLO
	nlpi129.prodigy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751441Ab0C2PEV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:04:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20100327131138.GD20695@one.firstfloor.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

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 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.

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).