I don't really think this all that important. Neither moving the range that we allocate from nor making it discontinuous is that hard. Like I said before, I don't really care that much. 33 is fine.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > 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
