Bruce, I haven't heard back from you on this. can you please comment? I'd like to add the policy to the header.
----- Forwarded message from Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- From: Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bruce M. Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Allocating AF constants for vendors. Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 05:42:24 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Bruce M. Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070904 03:08] wrote: > >As you can see we are defering the "bloat". > >Does that make sense? > > > > I follow but it still doesn't really make sense. > > Granted, you are deferring the growth of arrays sized off AF_MAX but > only ever by 1 slot. > What if Vendor Z wants to add 25 entries at once? Then as long as they allocate odd numbered entries they should be fine. FreeBSD's AF_MAX does not need to change to accomidate a vendor, it only has to restrict itself to even numbered slots. > We would also be tying ourselves down to the notion of a vendor in any > AF_ allocation. Is this an avenue that people are happy to pursue? Yes, until the "horrific" problem of the statically sized arrays is "fixed". Then the allocation policy can change. -- - Alfred Perlstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ----- End forwarded message ----- -- - Alfred Perlstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
