[openbeosnetteam] Re: Status
- From: "Andrew Galante" <haiku.galante@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:10:41 -0400
I was initially thinking of taking out the current stack, replacing it with
the BSD code. Then either change the BSD code to work with Haiku or write a
wrapper to interface the two.
I would prefer a BONE like architecture with a
useful separation of code and functionality into modules. That's why I
would like to do this transition module per module.
But anyway, what do you think we should do? Have I managed to alter
your opinion?
You mean like the ipv4 module, tcp module, etc? Keeping the BSD code
together will make it easier to upgrade or fix bugs if any are found in
FreeBSD.
I just thought it would be easier to get the stack into a working state
fast and then proceed from there, i.e. break out and clean up module by
module. This would have the advantage that we could check for regressions
as we work on the modularization, since we could test the stack by actually
using it (then again, we could do that with our current stack, it just
doesn't work properly at the moment).
Sounds good. We should keep the code fairly organized, so that if bugs are
found in FreeBSD, it would be fairly simple to track down the relevant
sections in Haiku.
I don't know the Haiku code well enough to make a decision about what
functionality is performed by which thread.
As far as sysctl vs ioctl goes, I'm not fond of the /dev/net/stack "device
that is not a device." If it makes the stack easier to work with, I'll go
with it.
Other related posts:
