Thirumalai Srinivasan wrote:
Iam not sure what exactly you have in mind. If you come up with some
alternative proposal with the details, it may help to clarify.
We have complex locking hierarchy in place that we have to adapt new code
to because of the infrastructure around IREs.
In replacing an IRE table with a radix tree, we're rediscovering how
intricate
the locking mechanisms are within this. It's not clear whether this is
because
we're retaining IREs (rather than replacing them with something else) or
if it
is just the code organisation.
I think we need to sit up and take notice of the nature of the comments that
everyone has made about the surya project, especially those from you
(I would never have imagined the threading/locking problems you
highlighted).
Perhaps the use of IREs should have been thrown out long ago and replaced
with something better but if we're going to stick with them, we need to
look at
redesiging the way we work with them from the ground up.
We need to ask ourselves what can we do to make it easier to maintain TCP/IP
without having to consider such a complex scenario?
A starting point is to look at what's required to eliminate recursion
when deleting
elements from the routing table (or radix tree.)
Darren
Darren Reed wrote:
To me this seems suboptimal. Do we have any plans to do away with
the IRE tables completely and replace them all with radix trees?
Or is there a reason why we cannot do this?
What else can we do to make the situation less complex and less fraught?
Darren
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
