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
> > > 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.
>
> Connector requires it's own registration technique for
> 1. hide all transport [netlink] layer from higher protocols which use
> connector
Why?
> 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]
I don't understand.
> 3. provide more generic set of ids
What do you mean by "ids"?
- James
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>
-
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.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
