Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:36:41 +0100), Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > Thank you for your replies and comments, I will be back when the v6 side is > ready. Please fix the following as well. 1. Put your code in net/ipv4, probably as udplite.c, and remove net/udp-lite/. Similarly, plasse put implementation as net/ipv6/udplite.c. 2. Eliminate any cosmetic changes (space, new-line, coding style etc.); minimize diffs between udp.c udplite.c BTW, I cannot find descriptions about fragmentation of UDP-Lite in the spec. Is it yours? -- YOSHIFUJI Hideaki @ USAGI Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG-FP : 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
Quoting David Miller: | From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:09:33 +0100 | | > That is why I held back regarding the IPv6 port: | | It's not like an ipv6 port is such a big pile of work. | I see the point and will port to v6 (have asked colleages for help). Until then, I will keep an up-to-date (-mm) patch in the tarball http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gerrit/udp-lite/files/udplite_linux.tar.gz This has applications as well. I would value any more input: the suggestion to use SOCK_DGRAM has already been integrated and proved a really good idea (much less to patch, cleaner code). Usually an update is there on the same day the new kernel comes out. Thank you for your replies and comments, I will be back when the v6 side is ready. - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:09:33 +0100 > That is why I held back regarding the IPv6 port: I can ensure that > this (IPv4) code is up to standard and to date, but am lacking the > required additional time to implement the same for IPv6. I am > trying to contact people to help with the port, but for the moment I > will take responsibility only for the IPv4 version. It's not like an ipv6 port is such a big pile of work. I'd say it would take you an afternoon, max. You don't have to test it to the point where it is ISO9000 compliant, that's not what is being asked of you. - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
Quoting James Morris: | On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Miller wrote: | | > > Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous | > > UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon | > > as testing permits. | > | > Nobody is going to integrate your patch anywhere, don't worry. | > You make it clear that once you toss this piece of code over | > the wall, you'll disappear. | | Having dealt with more than enough code thrown over the wall in recent | times, I agree. I understand the points of both of you well enough. But how come this is interpreted as saying I'd "toss this piece of code over the wall"? I can understand getting tired of cowboy coding jobs, but there is a misunderstanding here. Of course do and will I maintain that code and every issue related it. I have been maintaining, improving, testing this code for 9 months. The protocol spec (RFC 3828) was developed at University of Aberdeen, and there is continuing research into UDP-Lite here, i.e. it is not a `dead' project. That is why I held back regarding the IPv6 port: I can ensure that this (IPv4) code is up to standard and to date, but am lacking the required additional time to implement the same for IPv6. I am trying to contact people to help with the port, but for the moment I will take responsibility only for the IPv4 version. And if there is someone `well-known and respected' who is interested in taking this code over, I would only be happy for him/her to do this. But I won't simply `disappear' :-) - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David Miller wrote: > > Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous > > UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon > > as testing permits. > > Nobody is going to integrate your patch anywhere, don't worry. > You make it clear that once you toss this piece of code over > the wall, you'll disappear. Having dealt with more than enough code thrown over the wall in recent times, I agree. But, if someone well known & trusted wants to claim responsibility for the code once it's upstream, that might be a way forward (I think the Apache project has or had a policy like this). - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:03:54 +0100 > Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous > UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon > as testing permits. Nobody is going to integrate your patch anywhere, don't worry. You make it clear that once you toss this piece of code over the wall, you'll disappear. - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:22:54 +0100 > I am sorry, I don't at the moment have the time to port to v6 with the > same degree of rigour. You give the impression that you would just disappear from the face of the planet should your work actually be integrated into the kernel tree. So I can only assume that you are posting this for people to play around with, and not for serious consideration of inclusion into the kernel tree. We're trying to avoid this serious problem we have where a group or individual submits on a piece of code, works just hard enough to get it integrated into the tree, then disappears and does not stick around to support the inevitable ensuing bugs and problem reports. Such behavior is totally irresponsible, yet it happens quite a bit. So if you can't be bothered to cook up IPV6 support, chances are you won't stick around to support your code if it went into the tree either. - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
Quoting Alan Cox: | Ar Iau, 2006-06-08 am 11:50 +0100, ysgrifennodd Gerrit Renker: | > + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for | > + lightweight, connection-less services. These are the socket options: | | This is not the intended use of the socket API when distinguishing | between services. The socket() call has a protocol field that is usually | unused and it exists precisely to disambiguate multiple protocols with | the same generic behaviour but different properties. | | s = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDPLITE); | | is probably the right way to do this, keeping 0 "default" as before | meaning IPPROTO_UDP Understood. Please, anyone, disregard or un-apply the previous UDP-Lite patch. A revised patch will be prepared and posted as soon as testing permits. - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:47:52 +0100), Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > Ar Iau, 2006-06-08 am 11:50 +0100, ysgrifennodd Gerrit Renker: > > + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for > > + lightweight, connection-less services. These are the socket options: : > s = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDPLITE); > > is probably the right way to do this, keeping 0 "default" as before > meaning IPPROTO_UDP I do think so, too. --yoshfuji - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
Ar Iau, 2006-06-08 am 11:50 +0100, ysgrifennodd Gerrit Renker: > + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for > + lightweight, connection-less services. These are the socket options: This is not the intended use of the socket API when distinguishing between services. The socket() call has a protocol field that is usually unused and it exists precisely to disambiguate multiple protocols with the same generic behaviour but different properties. s = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDPLITE); is probably the right way to do this, keeping 0 "default" as before meaning IPPROTO_UDP - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:50:33 +0100), Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > + UDP-Lite introduces a new socket type, the SOCK_LDGRAM (note the L) for > + lightweight, connection-less services. These are the socket options: I disagree. It should be SOCK_DGRAM. -- YOSHIFUJI Hideaki @ USAGI Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG-FP : 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA - 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
Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:50:33 +0100), Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > Attached is an extension which adds RFC3828 - compliant UDP-Lite > functionality > to the IPv4 networking stack. : > net/core/sock.c |7 > net/ipv4/af_inet.c| 64 + > net/ipv4/proc.c | 32 > net/udp_lite/Kbuild |1 > net/udp_lite/Kconfig | 20 > net/udp_lite/udplitev4.c | 1730 > ++ > 19 files changed, 2296 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) Plase do the ipv6 side. Thank you. BTW, is it possible to do merge or share codes among the following things? - udp / udp-lite (=> net/ipv4, net/ipv6) and/or - udp-lite/ipv6 / udp-lite/ipv4 (=> net/udplite) Regards, -- YOSHIFUJI Hideaki @ USAGI Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG-FP : 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA - 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
