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 would be nice to have and useful for other
> > subsystems too as an option to the current broadcast.
>
> This is a good point, in general, consider generically extending Netlink
> itself instead of creating these separate things.
I just do not understand, what does netlink multicasting means
and how it is different from what we have now.
Currently we have group registratin in bind(),
and then send data to the bound socket if it
has appropriate group.
Or should some error be propagated to the caller,
if there is no appropriate listener?
Connector requires it's own registration technique for
1. hide all transport [netlink] layer from higher protocols which use
connector
2. create different group appointment for the given connector's ID
[it was different, now new group which is eqal to idx field is appointed
to
the new callback]
3. provide more generic set of ids
>
> - James
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
- References:
- Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
- Prev by Date: Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
- Next by Date: Re: Kernel SCM saga..
- Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
- Next by thread: Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
- Index(es):
 |