* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070821 14:13] wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to reserve about 64 entries for VENDOR specific address
> families in sys/socket.h.
>
> I think this will allow vendors to comfortably use the array of
> address families without worrying about overlap with
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Bruce, I haven't heard back from you on this. can you please comment?
I'd like to add the policy to the header.
I'm not 100% happy with this suggestion, however, it is a loosely
working compromise.
I would be happier if the static index dependency on AF_MAX is ir
L 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]> [07
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* 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.
* Randall Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070904 13:22] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >* 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.
> >>
* 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 i
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Can you merge them into the list in such a way that AF_MAX does not need
to slide forward?
Or do they need to be referenced from within the kernel tree itself?
They are refenced inside the kernel.
Let me rephrase that: are protocol domains attached in the kern
* Bruce M. Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070903 07:44] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >Ok, I'm not really sure what to do here. At Juniper we have approx
> >20 additional entries for AF_ constants. We also have theoretical
> >but not practical "problems" with spareness and utility of this
> >l
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Ok, I'm not really sure what to do here. At Juniper we have approx
20 additional entries for AF_ constants. We also have theoretical
but not practical "problems" with spareness and utility of this
list, meaning we have plenty of arrays in our version of ifnets and
route
* Bruce M. Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070822 07:33] wrote:
> I second Max. If you are going to introduce a bunch of AF_* constants
> into the tree you have to be very careful as AF_MAX is used to size
> arrays and figure out how many radix trie heads to allocate.
Ok, I'm not really sure what to
* Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070822 14:38] wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> [...]
> > On the other hand, if you don't need to reference these constants in
> > the kernel at all, and they will all exist beyond AF_MAX, then you can
> > disregard what I've said and a
On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
[...]
> On the other hand, if you don't need to reference these constants in
> the kernel at all, and they will all exist beyond AF_MAX, then you can
> disregard what I've said and append them to the rest of the list.
Please make sure to leave a
I second Max. If you are going to introduce a bunch of AF_* constants
into the tree you have to be very careful as AF_MAX is used to size
arrays and figure out how many radix trie heads to allocate.
It could be argued this wastes a bunch of CPU time and memory, though I
speculate 'not much' at
Can you please submit your patch to the group for review?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:50:55PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to reserve about 64 entries for VENDOR specific address
> families in sys/socket.h.
>
> I think this will allow vendors to comfortably use the
On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I trimmed the sender of this because I got it in private mail, that
> said I thought it was a good bunch of questions so I am replying
> to it.
>
> > 64? are you intending to bump AF_MAX or allocate them sequentially
> > such that adding anoth
I trimmed the sender of this because I got it in private mail, that
said I thought it was a good bunch of questions so I am replying
to it.
> 64? are you intending to bump AF_MAX or allocate them sequentially such
> that adding another AF will require AF_MAX to grow a lot?
>
> In general this s
Hello all,
I would like to reserve about 64 entries for VENDOR specific address
families in sys/socket.h.
I think this will allow vendors to comfortably use the array of
address families without worrying about overlap with FreeBSD
protocols.
If no one objects I plan to commit this in the next fe
17 matches
Mail list logo
