From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Julius Volz" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS. Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:17:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: <485043E6.5030105@candelatech.com> <485050FE.6030209@google.com> <20080612014548.GE22358@verge.net.au> <485126BD.7030109@trash.net> <485144DF.3030102@trash.net> <20080613062621.GA10474@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Patrick McHardy" , "Vince Busam" , "Ben Greear" , lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Simon Horman" Return-path: Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:49145 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750910AbYFMORt (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:17:49 -0400 Received: from spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.142]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m5DEHgJW029083 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:17:43 +0100 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wfa25.prod.google.com [10.142.1.25]) by spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m5DEHf63025818 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:17:42 +0100 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so4712757wfa.0 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:17:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080613062621.GA10474@verge.net.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:33:27PM +0200, Julius Volz wrote: >> Ok, my first impression is that genetlink is aimed at being simple to >> use (and has a nice howto). >> >> So we'll work on a genetlink interface and some of the other v6 patch >> issues and then post again in a while. Thanks for the feedback! >> >> Horms: ping if you're interested or have some good ideas for this. > > Julius: pong > > The main two problems that I see in the existing interface are > a) lack of extendibility (which is why we are here) and; > b) non-idempotent actions, especially adding and deleting > real servers, which mean that user-space programs that > manipulate ipvsadm have have extra (racy) logic. > (ok, perhaps that is more a pet peeve than a problem). Ok, so we probably won't focus on b) as a priority right now, unless it happens as a side-effect. > I don't really have any concrete ideas about what a better > interface would look like. But I am more than happy to hash our ideas. Good! At the moment I'm looking at various netlink docs and figuring out how things generally work. I think netlink probably adds a lot of complexity over the previous sockopt interface, but I hope it's worth it. As for compatibility and extensibility, how is that best achieved with netlink? I've seen some examples copy whole C structs into netlink datagrams, but that is obviously what we don't want anymore. So the way to go seems to be to transfer each struct field as a separate netlink attribute, right? Julius -- Google Switzerland GmbH