On Sun, 2005-13-11 at 23:38 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Skipping all L3 issues ..] > > My suggestion to move forward is: > > i) Lets just stick to existing states in the RFC and no innovation of > > any sort. > > This is backwards: > Why is it backwards? > > Issue-2) > > User space may be involved in kicking some of these state transitions. > > The issue is how to code so that you have no exposure to races from user > > space being preempted etc. > > So we need a real code to see how to do it and if it could be done this > way or needs another. > > > I think this is resolvable once we agree on recommendation for #1 above. > > The main contention at the moment is between Thomas and Stefan - each > > has a different approach and we want one patch not 10. > > So we now have one working patch, and we will probably have up to 2 more. > Then we choose the best approach and the rest is easy. > Thats the idea. But for now - I suggest we take L3 out of the equation and we revisit after the first agreeable patch is out. > Come on, making a patch showing the general idea as well as the > problematic details (locking) is trivial if the idea isn't broken. There are three patches posted. None of which is agreeable. I am failing to see the disagreements on these issues at the moment. But before we go there, can you please respond to the email i posted earlier about the details of where you stand on the 2863 issue? It seems i have misunderstood where people stood on that topic. I will then like to post the issues list again. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
