[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-vlan
Subject:    [VLAN] Re: [VLAN] Re: [VLAN] Re: [VLAN] Getting the code into the kernel proper.
From:       bof () oknodo ! bof ! de
Date:       2000-04-17 6:55:11
[Download RAW message or body]

> > > Look at VLAN implementation at http://vlan.sourceforge.net. With this
> > > implementation you can
> > > configure independent VLANs on different interfaces and you have ethX.Y
> > > naming scheme.
> > 
> > Just looked at it; booted fine, then 'vlanctl add eth1 11' killed the
> > machine (while I was connected through eth0). Too bad, will look at
> > that when I'm at work...
> What kernel do you use 2.2.x or 2.3.x? 2.3.x patch isn't tested well yet
> but 2.2.x should work fine. Can you tell me where it Oops?

2.3.99-pre5, with your 2.3.99-pre3 patch cleanly applied. I can tell you
where it Oopses as soon as I get back to the machine I tried it on...
But I'll switch to your mailing list for reporting further.

> > >From cursory reading your implementation is cleaner (clearly smaller patch),
> We (I and Lennert) started it because Ben's implementation is too
> complicated.

Sigh. You know the story about editors? Where the student complains to the
master that there are so many different editors, all complicated? And then,
after the master acknowledges the problem, the student rambles on how he
will write yet another editor to replace them all?

In other words: I don't see anything in Ben's patchset which would preclude
cleaning up, seperating the core VLAN functionality from the superfluous
stuff (if indeed there is such a thing), and work together on making the
one best implementation. Ben's has the clear advantage to be in production
use for some months. Yours looks cleaner.

Anyway, to be slightly more productive, I'll take time next evening to
review both sets of patches in depth, and point out where the real
differences are.  We will use one set or the other shortly, and I don't
want to keep wondering which codebase to use.

> 2.4 is in feature freeze

Haha. From what I've seen on l-k (LVM, for example) that's not really true.

regards to all
  Patrick

_______________________________________________
VLAN mailing list  -  VLAN@Scry.WANfear.com
http://www.WANfear.com/mailman/listinfo/vlan
VLAN Page:  http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear/vlan.html

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]