[openbeosnetteam] Re: Status
- From: Oliver Tappe <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:43:13 +0200
On 2006-06-14 at 12:29:45 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Since we all seem to like that code so much, maybe we should step away
> from the idea of porting the FreeBSD stack? We could still use it as a
> coding reference (ie. what has to be done and how should it work etc.).
> With you, Andrew, and me, and maybe someone else like Marcus jumping
> in, we've quite a bit engineering power at our hands to implement a
> clean stack based on FreeBSD and what we have (and other sources, as
> well, if preferred).
Well, it *is* very tempting to have a go at doing a stack of our own,
especially since there all of a sudden are several developers who want to
start working on the netstack. Furthermore, it should prove very helpful
that there's at least three different sources to look at (and copy
functionality from): FreeBSD, our current stack and Marrow (don't know
about all you other guys, but I intend to check that one out, too).
So are we going to have some kind of official decision about this then? New
stack or port?
I think I'd vote for the new stack, it will be more work, but not that much
more, considering how the FreeBSD code looks. Of course it would be a pain
to integrate (leave alone) implement IPsec, but I don't know if that'll be
necessary anyway.
> > [ 8< ]
> > > For what do we need the tx-thread, btw? Is that additional
> > > handshake
> > > needed for anything?
> > That thread pushes data from the interface queue to the driver, so I
> > guess
> > dropping it would break the stack (as there would be no more
> > interface
> > queues).
>
> Sure, but I don't see why a simple write() in the processing thread
> isn't enough. It doesn't make much sense to write the packets
> internally faster than what the output device can do.
Err, can't think of any reason either, so maybe you're right (as usual >;o)
cheers,
Oliver
Other related posts:
