Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:07:06 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: Steve Kiernan <stevek@juniper.net> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Proposal for changes to network device drivers and network stack (RFC) Message-ID: <6AC27A59-9B9E-4D60-A5E4-E9C8FEF50F1D@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <20130117165323.5bfb8ff5@stevek-ubuntu> References: <CC6EF6B2.1917A%anshukla@juniper.net> <f1d8693fa83965f0d4a485a2db7e603b@novexsolutions.com> <50F868FF.5060506@networx.ch> <20130117165323.5bfb8ff5@stevek-ubuntu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17 Jan 2013, at 22:53, Steve Kiernan <stevek@juniper.net> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:11:27 +0100 > Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch> wrote: >=20 >> On 17.01.2013 20:23, Stephen J. Kiernan wrote: >>> The network stack as a module patch has been separated out and can be fo= und in the following location: >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~marcel/Juniper/netstack-v2.diff >>=20 >> This is quite some work and a lot of changes which will a moment to revie= w. >>=20 >> Can you describe the concept and the terminology you're using here some m= ore? >> What is a netstack module and what is its scope? How does it relate to V= NET? >> What is an IOCGROUP? etc. All this is probably obvious to you but not ye= t for >> us. >=20 > Sure, not a problem. First, I will repeat here what Anu sent out previousl= y as a description of the netstack changes. >=20 >> Today, not compiling networking stack related files in the kernel breaks >> the kernel build due to dependencies the OS has on the network stack >> (calling into functions in the network stack). Network stack module isn't= >> there. We've added these in JUNOS. The benefits for us are obvious (we ca= n >> load our own version of network stack if we desire!), but most likely thi= s >> functionality will benefit others too. >>=20 >> The detailed implementation is indicated later in this email. In short th= e >> changes are: >>=20 >> - Load network stack as a module. For now via loader, not dynamically >> loaded. (Is there interest in dynamic loading?). I speak only for myself but I think dynamic loading would avoid a lot of tro= uble with/for people who don't read UPDATING carefully and forget to adjust l= oader.conf...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6AC27A59-9B9E-4D60-A5E4-E9C8FEF50F1D>