I meant moving the group of fallback IDs would break things.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
