On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 12:45 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-04-11 09:22
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 09:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Graf ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > wrote:
> > > + size = NLMSG_SPACE(sizeof(*msg) + msg->len);
> > > +
> > > + skb = alloc_skb(
* Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-04-11 09:22
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 09:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Graf ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > + size = NLMSG_SPACE(sizeof(*msg) + msg->len);
> > +
> > + skb = alloc_skb(size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + if (!skb) {
> > + pri
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 09:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Graf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-04-10 10:39
> > Please crosspost on netdev - you should know that by now;->
> >
> > I actually disagreee with Herbert on this. Theres definetely good
> > need to have a more usable m
* jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-04-10 10:39
> Please crosspost on netdev - you should know that by now;->
>
> I actually disagreee with Herbert on this. Theres definetely good
> need to have a more usable messaging system that rides on top of
> netlink. It is not that netlink cant be extended (I
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 10:56, James Morris wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005, jamal wrote:
>
> > Thats what the original motivation for konnector was. To make it easy
> > for joe dumbass.
>
> Who you really want writing kernel code :-)
Ok, let me take that back then ;->
The value is in allowing people who
On 10 Apr 2005, jamal wrote:
> Thats what the original motivation for konnector was. To make it easy
> for joe dumbass.
Who you really want writing kernel code :-)
- James
--
James Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bod
Evgeniy,
Please crosspost on netdev - you should know that by now;->
I actually disagreee with Herbert on this. Theres definetely good
need to have a more usable messaging system that rides on top of
netlink. It is not that netlink cant be extended (I actually think thats
a separate topic) - its
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:10:05 +0200
Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-04-10 15:37
> > --- ./net/netlink/af_netlink.c.orig 2005-04-10 15:46:48.0 +0400
> > +++ ./net/netlink/af_netlink.c 2005-04-10 15:47:04.0 +0400
> > @@ -747,7
* Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2005-04-10 15:37
> --- ./net/netlink/af_netlink.c.orig 2005-04-10 15:46:48.0 +0400
> +++ ./net/netlink/af_netlink.c 2005-04-10 15:47:04.0 +0400
> @@ -747,7 +747,7 @@
> if (p->exclude_sk == sk)
> goto out;
>
> -
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:37:57 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The second one is a huge monster that can not be used in embedded
> systems, calling userspace process from inside the kernel is
> now very flexible way.
is NOT very flexible way...
Evgeniy Polyakov
Only
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:08:44 +0200
Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:32 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:52:54 +1000
> > Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > User should not
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:32 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:52:54 +1000
> Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > User should not know about low-level transport -
> > > it is like socket layer - write only data and
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:52:54 +1000
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please add netdev to the CC list since this discussion pertains to
> the networking subsystem.
>
> Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > User should not know about low-level transport -
> > it is like socke
Please add netdev to the CC list since this discussion pertains to
the networking subsystem.
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> User should not know about low-level transport -
> it is like socket layer - write only data and do not care about
> how it will be delivered.
The deline
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:02:22PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:19:39 +0400
> Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I know, the same thing holds for most architectures, including i386.
> > > However, this is not an issue for uni-processor kernels anywhere el
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 01:55 -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > > > Sure, but seems I need to ask again: What is the exact reason not to
> > > > implement
> > > > the muticast message multiplexing/subscription part of the connector as
> > > > a
> > > >
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:19 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:08 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:11:56AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes but what will go wrong on uni-processor MIPS when you don't do the
> > > > sync in atomic_sub_ret
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:19:39 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know, the same thing holds for most architectures, including i386.
> > However, this is not an issue for uni-processor kernels anywhere else,
> > so what's so special about MIPS?
>
> Does i386 or ppc has cached a
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > Sure, but seems I need to ask again: What is the exact reason not to
> > > implement
> > > the muticast message multiplexing/subscription part of the connector as a
> > > generic part of netlink? That would be nice to have and useful for other
> >
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 15:08 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:11:56AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >
> > > Yes but what will go wrong on uni-processor MIPS when you don't do the
> > > sync in atomic_sub_return?
> >
> > Sync synchornizes cached mamory access,
> > without it
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:11:56AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > Yes but what will go wrong on uni-processor MIPS when you don't do the
> > sync in atomic_sub_return?
>
> Sync synchornizes cached mamory access,
> without it new value may be stored only into cache,
> but not into memory.
I
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 14:53 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:55:27AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >
> > > > Unfortunately not, that sync is required exactly for return value store.
> > >
> > > On UP?
> >
> > Yes, some quotes:
>
> Yes but what will go wrong on uni-process
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:53:02 +1000
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes but what will go wrong on uni-processor MIPS when you don't do the
> sync in atomic_sub_return?
Indeed. I see nothing in those quotes which indicate that the
SYNC is needed on uniprocessor. It's only saying things suc
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:55:27AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately not, that sync is required exactly for return value store.
> >
> > On UP?
>
> Yes, some quotes:
Yes but what will go wrong on uni-processor MIPS when you don't do the
sync in atomic_sub_return?
Cheers,
--
V
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 14:17 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:21:28AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >
> > > > On UP do not.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we should be fixing the MIPS implementation of
> > > atomic_sub_return to not do the sync on UP then?
> >
> > Unfortunately not,
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:52:34 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sparc64 has 32->64 conversation on exit.
It's extremely cheap, the conversion instruction
pairs with the retl instruction so it's essentially
free.
Talking about an arithmetic instruction over is complete
nonsense w
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:17:24 +1000
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On UP?
I think the barrier can be eliminated on MIPS on UP.
-
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.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:21:28AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > > On UP do not.
> >
> > Shouldn't we should be fixing the MIPS implementation of
> > atomic_sub_return to not do the sync on UP then?
>
> Unfortunately not, that sync is required exactly for return value store.
On UP?
--
Vi
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 14:02 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:02:49AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >
> > > > mips has additional sync.
> > >
> > > But atomic_dec + 2 barries is going to do the sync as well, no?
> >
> > On UP do not.
>
> Shouldn't we should be fixing the M
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:02:49AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > > mips has additional sync.
> >
> > But atomic_dec + 2 barries is going to do the sync as well, no?
>
> On UP do not.
Shouldn't we should be fixing the MIPS implementation of
atomic_sub_return to not do the sync on UP then?
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:50 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:52:34AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:32 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:33:58AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:59 +1000, Herber
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:52:34AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:32 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:33:58AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:59 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:32 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:33:58AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:59 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > atomic_dec_and_test() is more expensive than 2 barriers
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 11:47 -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > Sure, but seems I need to ask again: What is the exact reason not to
> > implement
> > the muticast message multiplexing/subscription part of the connector as a
> > generic part of netlink? That
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:33:58AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:59 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > atomic_dec_and_test() is more expensive than 2 barriers + atomic_dec(),
> > > but in case of connector I think the pri
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:59 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > atomic_dec_and_test() is more expensive than 2 barriers + atomic_dec(),
> > but in case of connector I think the price is not so high.
>
> Can you list the platforms on which this is true?
s
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> atomic_dec_and_test() is more expensive than 2 barriers + atomic_dec(),
> but in case of connector I think the price is not so high.
Can you list the platforms on which this is true?
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herb
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Sure, but seems I need to ask again: What is the exact reason not to implement
> the muticast message multiplexing/subscription part of the connector as a
> generic part of netlink? That would be nice to have and useful for other
> subsystems too as an opti
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 16:23 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Sure, but seems I need to ask again: What is the exact reason not to implement
> the muticast message multiplexing/subscription part of the connector as a
> generic part of netlink? That would be nice to have and useful for other
> subsystems
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:24:34PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 12:41 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > 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 Po
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 12:41 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> 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
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
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 01:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Plus, I'm still quite unsettled about the whole object lifecycle
> > > management, refcounting and locking in there. The fact that the code is
> > > littered with peculiar barrier
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
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
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Plus, I'm still quite unsettled about the whole object lifecycle
> > management, refcounting and locking in there. The fact that the code is
> > littered with peculiar barriers says "something weird is happening here",
> > and it remains unobv
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:30:49PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 01:17 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Guillaume Thouvenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I don't see the conn
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 01:17 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Guillaume Thouvenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it
> > > seems that you removed t
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:42:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Guillaume Thouvenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it
> > seems that you removed the connector?
>
> Greg dropped it for some reason. I think tha
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 00:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it
> > > > > seems that you removed the connector?
> > > >
> > > > Greg dropped it for some reason. I think that'
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 11:53 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > Guillaume Thouvenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it
> > > > seems that you removed the connector?
> > >
> > > Greg dropped it f
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it
> > > > seems that you removed the connector?
> > >
> > > Greg dropped it for some reason. I think that's best because it needed a
> > > significant amount of rework. I'd
Forwarded message - Re: connector is
> missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1"
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 09:36 +0200, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
> > Guillaume Thouvenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I don't see
Guillaume Thouvenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it
> seems that you removed the connector?
Greg dropped it for some reason. I think that's best because it needed a
significant amount of rework. I'd like to see it
54 matches
Mail list logo
