Not really, I don't have any particular opinion on the actual number. The only thing that I was concerned about is what it would look like if we want to do this with the multicast groups for other families.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> wrote: > Based on my offline discussions with Jesse I arrived, rather > arbitrarily, at the number 214. I don't know enough about the kernel > to judge what a good number choice would be. Jesse seemed to think > larger was better. I'll use whatever the two of you think is best. > > Ethan > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:31, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:10:55PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >>> > Where does the number 214 come from? >>> >>> Experimentally I found that the number had to be fairly small. I >>> wanted it to be large enough to be unlikely conflict to values the >>> proper way. I also wanted a number which was arbitrary to avoid >>> conflicting with other people who may be improperly hardcoding values >>> like this. >> >> We already use genetlink groups 16 through 31 (see >> datapath/linux/compat/genetlink-openvswitch.c) and group 32 (see >> datapath/linux/compat/genetlink-brcompat.c). I don't think it makes >> sense to skip all the way to 214. Even in 2.6.37 I only see a total >> of 11 defined genetlink multicast groups, so I doubt that anyone's >> going to backport a bunch of them to RHEL 5. >> > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
