Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]

[James Morris]

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
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/