Re: [1/1] connector/CBUS: new messaging subsystem. Revision number next.

[Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 01:18:46 -0500
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net> wrote:

> On Monday 11 April 2005 07:59, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > /*****************************************/
> > Kernel Connector.
> > /*****************************************/
> > 
> > Kernel connector - new netlink based userspace <-> kernel space easy to use communication module.
> > 
> 
> Hi Evgeniy,

Hello, Dmitriy.

> I have looked at the connector implementation one more time and I think
> it can be improved in the following ways:
> 
> - drop unneeded refcounting;

It is already.

> - start only one workqueue entry instead of one for every callback type;

There is only one queue per callback device.

> - drop cn_dev - there is only one connector;

There may be several connectors with different socket types.
I use it in my environment for tests.

> - simplify cn_notify_request to carry only one range - it simplifies code
>   quite a bit - nothing stops clientd from sending several notification
>   requests;

? Nothing stops clients from sending several notification requests now.
I do not see how it simplifies the things?
Feel free to set idx_num and val_num to 1 and you will have the same.

> - implement internal queuefor callbacks so we are not at mercy of scheduler;

Current implementation has big warning about such theoretical behaviour, 
if it will be triggered, I will fix that behaviour, 
more likely not by naive work allocation - there might be
at least cache/memory pool or something...

> - admit that SKBs are message medium and do not mess up with passing around
>   destructor functions.

You mess up layers.
I do not see why you want it.

> - In callback notifier switch to using GFP_KERNEL since it can sleep just
>   fine;

Yes, it is correct

> - more... 
> 
> Because there were a lot of changes I decided against doing relative patch
> but instead a replacement patch for affected files. I have cut out cbus and
> documentation to keep it smaller so it will be easier to review. The patch
> is compile-tested only.

Connector with your changes just does not work.


Dmitry, I do not understand why do you change things in so radical manner,
especially when there are no 1. new interesting features, 2. no performance
improvements, 3. no right design changes.

> BTW, I do not think that "All rights reserved" statement is applicable/
> compatible with GPL this software is supposedly released under, I have
> taken liberty of removing this statement.

You substitute license agreements with copyright.
"All rights reserved" is targeted to copyright 
(avtorskoe pravo, zakon N 5351/1-1) of the code
and has nothing with license.


	Evgeniy Polyakov

Only failure makes us experts. -- Theo de Raadt