Re: AF_IPN: Inter Process Networking, try these...

From: [email protected] (Renzo Davoli)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:18:05 +0100

> I disagree. If you suspect we would be better using IP multicast, I think
> your suspects are not supported.
> Try the following exercises, please.... Can you provide better solutions
> without IPN?

I personally have not purely advocated IP, although the performance
differences UDP and AF_UNIX should be investigated.

Instead I advocated using AF_NETLINK with some minor multicast
permission modifications to suit your needs.
--
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
    • From: David Miller <[email protected]>
  • Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • AF_IPN: Inter Process Networking, try these...
    • From: [email protected] (Renzo Davoli)

• Prev by Date: [PATCH/RFC -rt] local_bh_enable() is safe for irqs_disabled()
• Next by Date: [PATCH] ecryptfs: make show_options reflect actual mount options
• Previous by thread: AF_IPN: Inter Process Networking, try these...
• Next by thread: Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]