On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:16:41AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 08:15:38AM CEST, [email protected] wrote: > >That wouldn't be a big deal if the library solved a thorny problem or > >required a lot of code or was difficult to maintain. Good examples of > >libraries in those categories are OpenSSL (which OVS uses) and liburcu > >(which OVS may use in a version or two; we are considering it). But, if > >you look at the code in OVS corresponding to the proposed liblagg, in > >lib/lacp.c and lib/bond.c, it's only about 2400 lines of code, and none > >of it is particularly complicated or hard to maintain. > > > > If you would add features supported by teamd already it would > definitely take at least 3x that much. And in future, this will go > probably even higher.
Well, that's worth talking about, at least. We in fact don't get many requests for LACP or bonding features. There's the occasional request for "give me an OpenFlow port for a bond" but that wouldn't be helped by a library. So for me that prompts a new question. I can easily believe that teamd has two or three times as many bonding features as OVS. But do you have a way to know or guess what fraction of users actually use the features in teamd that aren't in OVS? Another way to look at it is, by adding more features, what unsatisfied potential OVS users would then be satisfied? Thanks, Ben. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
