On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:54:22PM +0000, Tom Parkin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 08:47:40 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:28:34 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote: > > > I think the question is more about long term maintainance. Do we want > > > to keep PPP related module self contained, with low maintainance code > > > (the current proposal)? Or are we willing to modernise the > > > infrastructure, add support and maintain PPP features in other modules > > > like flower, tunnel_key, etc.? > > > > Right, it's really not great to see new IOCTLs being added to drivers, > > but the alternative would require easily 50 times more code. > > Jakub, could I quickly poll you on your current gut-feel level of > opposition to the ioctl-based approach? > > Guillaume has given good feedback on the RFC code which I can work > into an actual patch submission, but I don't really want to if you're > totally opposed to the whole idea :-) > > I appreciate you may want to reserve judgement pending a recap of the > ppp subsystem as it stands.
I've started writing some general explanations about the protocol and the actual kernel implementation. I'm planning to send them in the days to come. I just have to finish some higher priority tasks first. Sorry for the delay.
