netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???

To: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 802.1q Was (Re: Plans for 2.5 / 2.6 ???
From: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 06:03:21 -0700
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <393B414B.ACF84B1B@candelatech.com>; from greearb@candelatech.com on Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 10:57:31PM -0700
References: <20000603091818.B48132@sfgoth.com> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006040924390.16882-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> <20000604214856.B77216@sfgoth.com> <393B414B.ACF84B1B@candelatech.com>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> The ppp component itself could keep track of things itself too, and
> just never call the dev_alloc_name, perhaps with a list as you mentioned...

Good point.  The only place this falls down is if two unrelated network
devices are using the same naming scheme (like they both want to use
"abc0", "abc1", etc).  It will still work, of course, but will have
lots of collisions so it will tend towards N^2 performance just like
now.  As long as only one of the contenders wants to make a lot
of devices, it's just fine.  So you're right, this is the way to go.

So if we can get the inet_select_addr() thing sorted then the entire
impact of this change is to add two btrees to core/dev.c -- one
for looking up net_devices by name, another for looking them up by
ifindex.  Since these lookups are abstracted through the
__dev_get_by_{name,index}() calls we could even make this
CONFIG_SUPPORT_LOTSA_NET_DEVICES without too much gross code.

-Mitch

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>