FreeLists / openbeosnetteam / [openbeosnetteam] Re: PPP, libnet, and why inside the kernel?

["Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> libnet
> 
> Our present focus has been to get libnet working, and we've been 
> successful
> in that it now works quite well. We have a lot of the functions we 
> need and
> a lot more besides, which is very cool. Someone needs to go through 
> and
> check to see that we have all the functions that libnet.so provided 
> and add
> missing ones. Again, a volunteer would be really appreciated.

As I said, I'm volunteering for this, starting next week.

> New kernel
> 3. Next we start to move into the kernel proper. This will only 
> affect the
> core (net_server directory) as the individual modules will still be 
> separate
> and loaded at run time. It's at this point that some functions will
> hopefully move from libnet to libroot. Now, I don't think this will 
> cause
> any binary compat issues as libroot and libnet are both loaded by 
> apps under
> R5, but will start to provide a better platform to move forward with.
> However, I may be wrong about this :)

What besides select()? I hope things like socket() stay in libnet; that 
is an appropriate place for them. I still don't see what advantage 
there is to being copmiled into the kernel.

> PPP
> 
> We can't put this off forever and so sooner or later we're going to 
> have to
> start looking at adding this :) Suggestions are welcome as to the
> "architecture" to use and documents to refer to. I'd like to think 
> we'd aim
> for ppp, pppoe and pppoa. For the latter we'd need an atm module, 
> which
> might also be used by network cards, and that may affect the thoughts 
> on
> architecture?

I would be more than happy to do this. I even have a PPPoA stack for 
net_server (wheeee!), and a significant portion of an old attempt at 
replacing the net_server's PPP stack. I would like to have a ppp_lib.a 
kind of thing that would be compiled into all flavors. Serial PPP would 
be a device in its own right; the others protocol addons.

> Anyway, enough spouting from me. Please let's discuss the contents, 
> but try
> to reply with a subject line more appropriate and don't just reply to 
> the
> entire mail in one go as it covers too much ground for that. Be 
> interesting
> to see who read this bit won't it?

Heh, I only responded to half of it in one go...
-Nathan

--
Fortune Cookie Says:

Children are unpredictable.  You never know what inconsistency they're
going to catch you in next.
                -- Franklin P. Jones