On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 13:52 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 10:12 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 12:13 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > The main idea was to simplify userspace control and notification > > > system - so people did not waste it's time learning how skb's are > > > allocated > > > and processed, how socket layer is designed and what all those > > > netlink_* and NLMSG* mean if they do not need it. > > > > Isn't connector built on top of netlink? If so, is there any reason for > > it to be a new subsystem rather than an extension the the netlink API? > > Connector is not netlink API extension in any way. > It uses netlink as transport layer, one can change > cn_netlink_send()/cn_input() > into something like bidirectional ioctl and use it. > > Only one cn_netlink_send() function can be "described" as API > extension, > although even it is not entirely true.
I see much overlap here too. Wouldn't it be nice to see the transport part of the connector code to be implemented as a generic netlink multicast? We already have uni- and broadcast for netlink. Isn't the whole purpose of the connector to hook in notifications that act only if someone is listening? That is a perfect multicast case. :) At the time we added kobject_uevent I was missing something like this. The broadcast groups did not really fit, and we decided not to use them, and unicast wasn't a option here. Thanks, Kay - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
