jamal wrote:
On Wed, 2006-29-03 at 13:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-29-03 at 11:14 -0800, Jouni Malinen wrote:
[..]
A digression: One of the problems of the bridge in my opinion is having
STP, a control protocol, inside the kernel. I do hope someone with time
will rip it out of the kernel some day.
I looked into it, but the size of STP is less than the amount of stuff
needed to make it have the control hooks in user space.
I think thats a fine trade-off. The advantage of putting it in user
space is its a lot easier to add newer features. The current STP - by
virtue of being in the kernel - is missing a lot of newer developments.
There already exists a version of the new RSTP done on old version
of 2.4. It looks easier and better to just fix that and bring it up to date.
Plus there would be a lot of new race issues to deal with.
If there are races it only goes further to prove there's a serious
problem continuing to keep it in the kernel. The only thing that really
oughta stay in the kernel is the state machine - perhaps extended to
allow multiple trees per bridge.
The problem is you can't have a user space application lock the kernel.
But you can have a kernel thread grab a lock.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
