On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 14:14 +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
> Yes, starting from scratch on another port sounds like a good idea.
> Losing sync ability totally isn't as bad as confusing an older kernel
> with new messages, so I hope it's not necessary to keep the old
> baggage around?
I agree - having a new sync daemon which can deal with v6 entries aswell
as v4 entries would be a good way to work; the legacy code can then be
retired at a later date with minimal end-user impact.
> Is there enough motivation for doing this though before having a
> cleaned-up minimal v6 version without the sync daemon? This is where
> I'm currently a bit stuck with... any help is appreciated :)
Well, as someone else mentioned on lvs-users recently "I couldn't code
my way out of a wet paper bag in C" so I'm not much help on that front,
however I feel that getting the minimal working feature set going first
and then adding the sync code later is probably a good way to proceed.
This also gives us a development timeline that we can offer to
interested parties, along the lines of:
2008-10 Minimal IPv6 functionality
2008-?? Full IPv6 functionality matching IPv4 features, no IPv6 sync
2009-?? Restructured sync daemon with full IPv4 and IPv6 support
Horms, Joe - do you agree that this is a good idea?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html