I can't argue with that. We could add a way to query it, I guess, if really necessary.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 05:04:16PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > I meant moving the group of fallback IDs would break things. > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> 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 <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
