> Indeed. And let me just throw out another thought. A clean abstraction
> of the various portions of the PPP functionality is beneficial in other
> ways. My personal pet project being to add L2TP support to the kernel
> eventually. A good abstraction of the framing capabilities and basic
> PPP processing would be rather useful in that project.
That is exactly what ppp_generic.c is intended to do - it abstracts
out the framing and encapsulation and low-level transport of PPP
frames into ppp "channels" (see for example ppp_async.c,
ppp_synctty.c) while ppp_generic.c does the basic PPP processing
(compression, multilink, handling the network interface device etc.).
You should be able to write an L2TP channel to work with ppp_generic -
all your code would need to know about is how to take a PPP frame and
encapsulate and send it, and how to receive and decapsulate PPP
frames.
[Note to myself: send in a Documentation/ppp_generic.txt which
describes the interface between ppp_generic.c and the channels.]
> I would agree that such a project would be 2.5 material.
Do it today if you like, I can't see that adding a new PPP channel
could break anything else, it would be like adding a new driver.
Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/