From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] pktgen: introduce 'rx' mode Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 11:54:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20150502115443.2f89736e@redhat.com> References: <1430457130-16003-1-git-send-email-ast@plumgrid.com> <20150502104621.4fede885@redhat.com> <55449C8D.4020902@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: brouer@redhat.com, Alexei Starovoitov , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Robert Olsson , Ben Greear To: Daniel Borkmann Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46113 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751112AbbEBJzQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 May 2015 05:55:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55449C8D.4020902@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 02 May 2015 11:44:45 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Hi Jesper, > > On 05/02/2015 10:46 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > ... > > First of all I love the idea of modifying pktgen to performance test > > the RX path. > > > > I'm not sure the simple "rx" flag is a good "name". It likely > > conflicts with other work where pktgen can receive it own packets, e.g. > > https://people.kth.se/~danieltt/pktgen/ or Ben Greer's solution. > > Why do we start caring about out of tree code now? We never have, > really. If there is no interest in merging this stuff upstream, > then it's always the case that _their code_ needs to adapt iff you > want to run on a more recent kernel; the kernel dictates the uapi, > not some out of tree module. ;) Sure, out-of-tree code should not control our choices. I personally just don't like the "RX" flag name. What about "STACK_RX" or "RX_INJECT"? -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer