Olivier Dugeon <[email protected]> writes: > I'm also another question regarding the thread implementation / usage > in Quagga. Looking to the architecture, we could keep the modularity > of Quagga, but moving to pthread and dynamic load of daemon. We could > have a main pthread (i.e. Zebra layer) that dynamically load piece of > code that implement a given protocol regarding the configuration file > or based on which protocol is needed. This allow the possibility to > share the same memory space between the different daemon (pthread) > while avoiding communication channel between process. But, perhaps I'm > completely wrong, and I perfectly understand that it is a huge amount > of work to do.
Switching from private threads to pthread is probably good. I think the reason for the old ones is just that it was old. I think that having separate processes is a feature, in that it allows people to write a protocol daemon in their own way, just using the RPC mechanism. I also don't think normal humans can write correct threaded code, so that's another reason keeping them separate is good. So I would not be in favor of trying to make all of quagga be one process. I just don't see the current situation as part of the problem.
pgpXkAIOlNPzR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
