[Click] Uniform handler interface?

[Eddie Kohler]

Björn,

A ControlSocket for kernel space might be interesting, but it is not top on 
our list of priorities.

There are ways to translate from ControlSocket to kernel handlers, however. 
For instance, you can run a user-level Click proxy that translates 
ControlSocket requests to kernel handlers.

man KernelHandlerProxy
man ControlSocket   -- look for the PROXY keyword argument

Eddie




Björn Smedman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We have some click router configurations that I am trying to move from
> kernel-space to user-space. Making the switch was as simple as changing the
> command we use to load the configuration from "click-install" to "click". We
> where very impressed to find this complex router config with custom elements
> and all working exactly as before without a single change to either config
> or code. :)
> 
> But the handler interface differences seem to require manual work. We have a
> control process that interacts with the click router through handlers (both
> read and write), and the interface to these handlers has changed completely
> after the move to user-space. In kernel-space we used the clickfs handler to
> file mappings. In user-space it seems we have to use ControlSocket.
> 
> Is it possible to use ControlSocket in kernel-space as well? Is there some
> "best practice" for interacting with router configs that can be moved freely
> between user- and kernel-space? It seems to me that this is such a
> compelling feature (to be able to debug in user-space and then move to
> kernel for better performance) that it would be worth while to abstract the
> handler interface.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Björn