[openbeosnetteam] Re: "No more B_KEEP_LOADED kernel modules" patch

> David wrote:
> > Just thinking it makes mroe sense to have 2 that are optimised...
>
> For me, it's first one more driver code source to maintain, and
> many duplicate code to handling the basic driver kernel API.
> Please, no.
>
> > Yeah, but when you call /dev/net/stack for a socket that's OK and not
> > strange at all :)
>
> Okay, what about calling it /dev/net/stocket?
> Or /dev/net/sacket ?
> ;-)
>
> > I actually don't think having 2 devices is a bad idea :)
>
> In fact, I was.
> The keep_loaded support was first using a second
> entry, called /dev/net/unload_stack, beside the so-debated
> /dev/net/stack one.
>
> But I find a better way to do the start/stop request support
> I was looking to have (being able to do it simply, from shell, with
> basic tool like "echo"):
>
> The net_socket_cookie->socket field is set to NULL until libnet.so
> call (if ever) ioctl(fd, NET_SOCKET_CREATE, ...) on it.
> Instead of rejecting any read/write operations on not-a-socket-yet,
> I choose to support writing "start" or "stop" in the write() hook.
> That way, no need to publish a second entry, it's one less entry to
> handle for devfs, vfs layer and kernel.
>
> I was thinking the simpler the better.
> KISS, to be short.

To be honest I eventually see doing this via sysctl ro some such interface
as that way we don't even need a socket... The new kernel will support
sysctl so that'll be the way we'll go.

>
> Okay, it's a trick, too, I agree.
>
> > Oh I have lots of grass! Well, not a lot but enough...
> >
> > http://www.hodgkinclose.net/albums/david/david3cb878fb9950a.jpg
> >
> > My lodger sitting on my front grass making up a hanging basket for me!
> > Yes,
> > I even have plants and stuff.
>
> You should be joking, right!?
> :-)

Nope! I even have pictures... :)

david

Other related posts: