It wouldn't break the ABI to move either pool around, because those aren't hardcoded in userspace, only in the kernel. A discontinuous range would also work but wouldn't be necessary.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:55:56PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > I guess the other thing is if we want to increase our pool of > preallocated multicast groups, we have to either break the ABI or make > the current pool discontinuous. > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > Personally I'd suggest 33 for this one and increment for each > > succeeding family. ??No one's ever mentioned a problem with our use of > > genetlink groups. ??Since RHEL5 is probably declining rather than > > increasing in deployment, my guess is that no one ever will. > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:44:53PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> 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
