On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > Sure, but seems I need to ask again: What is the exact reason not to > > > implement > > > the muticast message multiplexing/subscription part of the connector as a > > > generic part of netlink? That would be nice to have and useful for other > > > subsystems too as an option to the current broadcast. > > > > This is a good point, in general, consider generically extending Netlink > > itself instead of creating these separate things. >
> Connector requires it's own registration technique for > 1. hide all transport [netlink] layer from higher protocols which use > connector Why? > 2. create different group appointment for the given connector's ID > [it was different, now new group which is eqal to idx field is appointed > to > the new callback] I don't understand. > 3. provide more generic set of ids What do you mean by "ids"? - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
