|
> > 1. First of all is such a patch adding a new command something desirable and
> > could it possibly be merged or should I just drop it?
>
> It depends on its complexity, are you changing
> the ipvsadm -S code or just the kernel part?
Thank you for the fast reply! Just the kernel part for now and some
crude standalone benchmarking code, although I intend to also change
the ipvsadm -S code to use this new cmd if available.
> > 2. I can see that besides the generic netlink interface there's also another
> > interface based on getsockopt options, should the patch also add a new
> > socket
> > option or is it okay for this new functionality to be exclusive to generic
> > netlink?
>
> No, sockopt is old interface and it is not changed,
> it lacks IPv6 support, etc.
Great.
> > 3. Should this go forward, any advice on my next steps? Should I simply
> > send the
> > patch here?
>
> You can post it with [PATCH RFC] tag, so that we
> can see how do you mix services and destinations in same
> packet. You can also add speed comparison after the --- line
> for more information.
I'll do that and we can discuss further then. Thanks a lot for your time!
Regards
--
Cezar Sá Espinola
|
