| To: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ben Greear) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission |
| From: | Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:42:50 +0000 (GMT) |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller), linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3A57EB5E.966C91DA@candelatech.com> from "Ben Greear" at Jan 06, 2001 09:06:54 PM |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> + * NOTE: That is no longer true with the addition of VLAN tags. Not > + * sure which should go first, but I bet it won't make much > + * difference if we are running VLANs. The good news is that It makes a lot of difference tha the vlan goes 2nd. Most sane people wont have vlans active on a high load interface. > strcpy(dev->name, buf); > return i; > } > } > - return -ENFILE; /* Over 100 of the things .. bail out! */ > + return -ENFILE; /* Over 8192 of the things .. bail out! */ So fix the algorithm. You want the list sorted at this point, or to generate a bitmap of free/used entries and scan the list then scan the map Question: How do devices with hardware vlan support fit into your model ? Alan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), David Ford |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Alan Cox |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission, Matti Aarnio |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |