[pve-devel] applied: [PATCH pve-network 0/2] improvments

[Thomas Lamprecht]

On 6/7/19 7:11 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
>>>
>>> As long as we have a clear dependency releationship between the
>>> packages this could be OK. I.e., probably:
>>>
>>> common <- network  <----------------- manager
>>>            ^
>>>             `- qemu-server/container <-/ 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I have checked in the code, and they are a lot of small sub in Network.pm
> called in differents modules
> 
> ex:
> 
> Cluster.pm:    return PVE::Network::get_ip_from_hostname($nodename, $noerr);
> LXC/Setup/Base.pm:	    if ($has_ipv4 && !PVE::Network::is_ip_in_cidr($gw, $d->{ip}, 4)) {
> Storage/ISCSIPlugin.pm:    return PVE::Network::tcp_ping($server, $port || 3260, 2);
> Firewall.pm:use PVE::Network;
> Firewall.pm:		$mask = $PVE::Network::ipv4_mask_hash_localnet->{$entry->{mask}};
> 
> 
> 
> 
> subs in Network.pm are mostly helpers and tools, so I think it's better to keep them in common package.
> (to avoid cycling depend later).

Yes, those should be pretty independent too, most do some calls an
parsing to "ip" only, Wolfgang once though replacing those with using
the netlink protocol to talk directly with the kernel, but his
perl-netlink wrapper never went public, yet, so we may want to keep it
and think about this later, it shouldn't hurt here.


> 
> Code in Inotify.pm is more related to /etc/network/interfaces generation, so it's better to move that
> in pve-network.
> 
> Same for API2/Network.pm, it's only related to config management, can be move to pve-network.
> 
> what do you think about this ?
> 

seems OK, as said, only thing is that PMG also uses INotify so we need to
ensure it still can without to much hassle...