[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 11:00:34 -0700
Cc: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, rob@xxxxxxxxxxx, buytenh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, gleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <393BC83B.67AD86BF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 08:33:15AM -0700
References: <20000603091818.B48132@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0006040924390.16882-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000604214856.B77216@xxxxxxxxxx> <393B414B.ACF84B1B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000605060321.E77216@xxxxxxxxxx> <393BC83B.67AD86BF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ben Greear wrote:
> Seems a hashtable would be nice for the ifindex....

The problemn with using a hashtable: how big should it be?  After all
you want it small enough that there isn't much memory waste if you
have 3 devices, yet we can efficiently do a lookup on 10000 devices.
That's why I'm thinking a B+ tree or something would be more

People on lkml occasionally talk about making a general tree
implementation similar to <linux/list.h>.. does anyone know if
there's code somewhere?

> Also, if it takes out a linear search in a critical path (with seemingly
> minimal overhead), then I don't even think it should be a configurable
> option, just *IN* there!

I personally agree, but since some people seem strongly against the idea
it's a somewhat a matter of politics.


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