Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Network\s+protocols\s+as\s+modules\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Network\s+protocols\s+as\s+modules\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: xxxxx; Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:48:53 -0400; After long brainstorm meating, we compiled a list of some good reasons for network protocols to be implemented as kernel modules: Cleaner code Better maintainability Better extensibility Modularity; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00293.html (7,587 bytes)
2. Re: Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:49:19 -0600 (MDT); First I am rather curious as to why it would be so important to cut such a small part of the kernel and make it a module. I may just be a bit slow not knowing how much TCP and UDP take up. The things; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00294.html (9,712 bytes)
3. Re: Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: xxxxx; Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:22:07 +0200; Hello Andy, I think separating the basic protocols (icmp/igmp, tcp, udp) from the ip module is not a good idea. True. That would certainly be an advantage. Even with tcp, ... included in the ip modul; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00297.html (9,895 bytes)
4. Re: Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:27:54 -0400; Why not? You can still use the same memmory area. I am not saying completely separate, just let us make TCP as a kernel module or maybe TCP and UDP. ICMP/IGMP would have to stay as a part of IP. Gre; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00298.html (7,952 bytes)
5. Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: Andy <andy@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:48:53 -0400; Hello! After long brainstorm meating, we compiled a list of some good reasons for network protocols to be implemented as kernel modules: Cleaner code Better maintainability Better extensibility Modul; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00592.html (7,587 bytes)
6. Re: Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: Keyshaun <thekernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:49:19 -0600 (MDT); First I am rather curious as to why it would be so important to cut such a small part of the kernel and make it a module. I may just be a bit slow not knowing how much TCP and UDP take up. The things; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00593.html (9,737 bytes)
7. Re: Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: Stefan Schlott <stefan.schlott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:22:07 +0200; Hello Andy, I think separating the basic protocols (icmp/igmp, tcp, udp) from the ip module is not a good idea. True. That would certainly be an advantage. Even with tcp, ... included in the ip modul; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00596.html (9,985 bytes)
8. Re: Network protocols as modules (score: 1): Author: Andy <andy@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:27:54 -0400; Why not? You can still use the same memmory area. I am not saying completely separate, just let us make TCP as a kernel module or maybe TCP and UDP. ICMP/IGMP would have to stay as a part of IP. Gre; /archives/netdev/2000-06/msg00597.html (8,004 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]