Waldemar Kornewald <wkornew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> ... that it would probably be the best to keep the
> >> current design of the netstack as a base, and try to fix/port/
> > > rewrite
> >> it module-wise.
> > Oh, then my opinion was actually expressed too at BeGeister: I'm
> > 100% for such
> > pragmatic path.
> I don't quite understand what this fix/port/rewrite it *module-wise*
> means. The module design is highly flawed because it has to export
> constants (e.g.: ip routing, interface+protocol header size...), but
> the
> current design does not take this into account (it assumes that
> global
> constants in one module are available in other modules, too ;).
AFAICT these flaws aren't part of the design, but part of the specific
(broken) implementation. Maybe the design itself needs to be refined,
too, but that shouldn't stop us from going that route.
> Also, I don't (anymore) think that we gain very much from this
> modular
> design. The only modularity that might be needed is at the interface
> level (IPsec, VPN, SLIP, WiFi, Bluetooth, ...). Though, I would not
> shout if we made everything monolithic.
>
> So, my question, again: what does module-wise mean, here? Do you want
> it
> to be monolithic or modular?
I wouldn't mind to make it a bit more monolothic, but I don't care a
lot - whatever route allows the cleanest design and shortest loading
times (ie. built-in modules) is what I'd prefer.
Bye,
Axel.
