On Fri, 2006-23-06 at 16:32 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > If you do it in user space you will need a daemon of some form; this is
> > my preference but it seems a lot of people hate daemons - the standard
> > claim is it is counter-usability. Such people are forgiving if you built
> > the daemon into the kernel as a thread. Perhaps the netcarrier that
> > Stefan Rompf has added could be extended to handle this)
>
> I absolutely disagree, in my opinion we currently have too few
> specialized daemons and a lot too much wild shell scripting with
> seding, awking, grepping.
Like i said i too prefer a daemon; but i have experienced a lot of
people who dont (especially in small embedded devices).
> I'm actually working on a daemon that
> provides a small scripting language to express networking configuration
> states and react to result set changes and state transitions.
> Its far from complete, but already allows you to express things like
> "on transition from { none, link flags !up } to { link flags up }
> execute /etc/network/link/$LINK_NAME up" (same for routes, addresses,
> basically all object types) or "for each link with flags lowerup,up
> execute add-to-bridge.sh". The value of each expression is dumped
> into the environment on execution, so you can comfortably use
> $LINK_NAME or $LINK_MTU instead of having to cut it out the
> "ip link list" output. Should be trivial to support link speed changes
> once we have notifications for that.
>
cool - a neteventd
> I don't think it should carry both old and new speed. Netlink
> notifications usually provide a snapshot of the new state, but
> no indication what changed, with one notable exception, the
> ifi_change field, which IMO is a hack for lazy userspace.
I am quiet fond of the ifi_change ;->
> Since
> notifications can get lost, userspace needs to resync occasionally.
> The naiive approach (works for every other object) to determine if
> the object state changed from my last known state is to compare
> all attributes ..
scalability issues abound when you have a gazillion things to look at.
There used or may still be a way to tell from looking at netlink socket
that an error occurred since last time - such as "a message was lost".
You could use that to tell a message was lost and do scanning only
then.
> but the ifi_change field will be different
> between notifications and dumps even if the object itself didn't
> change. "Lazy userspace" because looking at ifi_change is obviously
> only useful if it doesn't keep its last known state and tries to
> derive the change from update notifications alone .. which means it
> fails when notifications are lost.
>
But thats not the real intent for it.
cheers,
jamal
PS:- I will look at your other postings and respond later i have to run
for now.
-
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
