On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:45:34PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:29:32AM +0100, Daniele Di Proietto wrote: >> > > I'll just attach the patch (just for a quick preview, it is not ready >> > jet) >> > > that builds the userspace components for the kernel datapath in FreeBSD. >> > We >> > > provide some linux functionalities (netlink and epoll) through wrappers >> > > (not included here) so that LINUX_DATAPATH is true. What we may need is a >> > > better way to understand which features are present to exclude some >> > blocks >> > > inside LINUX_DATAPATH. >> > >> > From reading this, it looks like the BSD kernel datapath port also >> > uses Netlink as the communication channel to the kernel. Is that >> > correct? >> > >> >> correct. daniele implemented netlink generic sockets >> for FreeBSD as a kernel module as part of the work. > > OK, that explains why there are interesting boundaries being crossed > here. > > How about this: > > - Replace LINUX_DATAPATH by NETLINK_DATAPATH, since that seems > to describe the relationship better. > > - Instead of (LINUX_DATAPATH && !HAVE_IF_DL), write just > __linux__. In the cases I looked at, the interface didn't > seem too likely to be of interest outside Linux. > > - Where individual features seem to be sensibly testable, do > that. > > - If the FreeBSD kernel datapath port makes it to upstream > FreeBSD, or otherwise achieves some kind of widespread > adoption, then we might eventually want to rename dpif-linux > to dpif-netlink.
Does this make sense to everyone? -- "I don't normally do acked-by's. I think it's my way of avoiding getting blamed when it all blows up." Andrew Morton _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
