Dear roaring IOTlers, after some discussion with Kaspar yesterday, we came to the conclusion that it would probably make sense to give a name to the new IPv6 network stack. The rational (aside from making it easier to refer to it) is that some parts of its implementation can serve as common ground for other network stacks, while other parts are specific to this particular stack. If someone wants to implement another IPv6 module, he/she could re-use, for instance, the IPv6 header structs. Hence, splitting the implementation in some common part and some implementation specific part seems to be most sensible to me.
However, the current approach intends to rename ng_ipv6* to ipv6*, which means
that the developer pulls in the full IPv6 implementation of the currently
developed stack. Instead it should be possible select a module "IPv6" for
common features and a module that includes the concrete implementation.
(Actually, it might be unnecessary to define a module "IPv6" if it just
contains header definitions, but maybe, e.g., checksum functions can be
reused, too.)
After thinking just for some minutes over a new name for the stack, I thought
that "NG" (pronounced Angie? ;)) may be not a bad idea after all and would
save us from quite some renaming... All we would have to do then is to extract
the common functionality and move it generic IPv6 and co. files.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Oleg
--
/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
linux-2.0.38/arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace.c
pgpC2GzRoheL2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
