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

["David Reid" <dreid@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > There will be a degree of network functionality going into the
> > kernel. IMHO
> > that's where it belongs due to the hooks it needs to be truly
> > efficient.
> > The /dev/net/stack will be going away when we move to kernel land
> > proper. As
> > for not knowing anything about sockets, what is a socket from the
> > kernel
> > pov? It's just another "window" into the kernel in the same way that
> > calling
> > open on a file is. Upgrading socket really isn't a concern, nor most
> > of the
> > other stuff that will end up in kernel. Look at the dates on some of
> > the
> > files and you'll find the main "non patch" changes were made in the
> > early-mid 90's for most of them.
>
> And it is exactly the same as a device open.

Yes, which isn't the same as a device open followed by an ioctl...

>
> > There will also be kernel modules for everything else. Where the line
> > gets
> > drawn is still open to some debate.
> >
> > Nathan: As I'm getting tired of typing - PPC isn't an essential or
> > even
> > desired piece of OpenBeOS R1, so support isn't there. Sad but true
> > and not
> > something I am really in a rush to change. As for not opening a lot
> > of
> > sockets, try opening BeBits using Net+. It opens a lot of sockets in
> > very
> > quick succession (like 20+) and the writes/selects/reads from them.
> > I've
> > also said if you want to work on the project then there is a lot you
> > can do
> > without needing physical access to a machine, but as you don't want
> > to do
> > this...
>
> The main speed slowdown is *not* in making two kernel trips (besides,
> can't we use open flags instead of an ioctl()?). If you can show me a
> net stack where this made any difference whatsoever, my hat is off to
> you. As for PPC support- I want this to work on my machine. For all I
> care, all the people who say it isn't essential can go to hell: I'll do
> it myself, and I am. For those who say it isn't desired, well, I don't
> feel the words I would use to describe people with such short-sighted
> viewpoints would be appropriate for this forum.

I'm having a hard time here. You obviously do read and write english, so why
have all the times that the standpoint on this has been pointed out not been
enough. There can't be that serious a mental illness or your other comments
wouldn't be so clear... /me is confused.

Also, so far Nathan all you've done is talk - where is the code? You haven't
submitted even a single patch despite me asking you to do it about 4 weeks
ago and more recently... As I've said - talk is cheap and only code will
gain you any standing.

> > Just to repeat something that hasn't come up for a while, this
> > project is to
> > get a the best stack we can for OpenBeOS using the new kernel. If we
> > can add
> > support for R5 then fine, but it's not even on my list of priorities.
> > The
> > reason it's been so debated is that I've been using R5 as my
> > development
> > platform - nothing else.
>
> Which is exactly the reason for building on ppc r5. Unfortunately, you
> don't seem to understand this...

What is the reason? Oh, you mean to write a stack for R5! Fine, if that's
really what you want to do then fork the code and do as you feel. Don't
start trying to get things into the OpenBeOS code base that are *just* to
make it work on R5.

BTW, I've unserstood this for a while, but as you've never actually stated
it before...

david