Message-ID: <47579DEB.9020102@davidnewall.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:29:55 +1030
From: David Newall <david@davidnewall.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>
CC: Renzo Davoli <renzo@cs.unibo.it>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
References: <20071205164055.GA2082@cs.unibo.it> <p73bq94k8yd.fsf@bingen.suse.de> <20071206053016.GA1464@cs.unibo.it> <2BD0AF2A-959D-4744-9D2A-3AE84CF96CBB@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <2BD0AF2A-959D-4744-9D2A-3AE84CF96CBB@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1149
Lines: 27

Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Dec 06, 2007, at 00:30:16, Renzo Davoli wrote:
>> AF_IPN is different.  AF_IPN is the broadcast and peer-to-peer 
>> extension of AF_UNIX. It supports communication among *user* processes.
>
> Ok, you say it's different, but then you describe how IP unicast and 
> broadcast work.

Renzo also described something new (in the socket() arena): the 
multi-reader, multi-writer is just not available in IP.

I wonder if this solves the same problem as d-bus?


> So if you really think this is something that belongs in the kernel 
> you need to provide much more detailed descriptions and use-cases for 
> why it cannot be implemented in user-space or with small modifications 
> to existing UDP/TCP networking. 

I would strengthen this sentiment: If you think something belongs in the 
kernel, you need to argue your case (provide much more detailed 
descriptions and use-cases.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/