Re: AF_IPN: Inter Process Networking, try these...
- From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:07:26 -0800 (PST)
From: renzo@xxxxxxxxxxx (Renzo Davoli)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:18:05 +0100
I disagree. If you suspect we would be better using IP multicast, I think
your suspects are not supported.
Try the following exercises, please.... Can you provide better solutions
without IPN?
I personally have not purely advocated IP, although the performance
differences UDP and AF_UNIX should be investigated.
Instead I advocated using AF_NETLINK with some minor multicast
permission modifications to suit your needs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
- From: David Miller
- Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
- From: Andi Kleen
- AF_IPN: Inter Process Networking, try these...
- From: Renzo Davoli
- Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
- Prev by Date: [PATCH/RFC -rt] local_bh_enable() is safe for irqs_disabled()
- Next by Date: [PATCH] ecryptfs: make show_options reflect actual mount options
- Previous by thread: AF_IPN: Inter Process Networking, try these...
- Next by thread: Re: New Address Family: Inter Process Networking (IPN)
- Index(es):