Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*100\s+network\s+limit\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*100\s+network\s+limit\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. 100 network limit (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00:19 +1000; has as one of it's features the ability to 'send-to-self', should be; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00874.html (7,944 bytes)
2. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: eff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:08:55 +0200; how up (eg in dev_get_by_index), especially when doing IO to raw sock; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00875.html (7,729 bytes)
3. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:46:39 -0700; naged systems that; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00880.html (9,483 bytes)
4. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: livan" <bos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:43 -0700; by bringing a network interface up or down. This is extremely useful; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00886.html (8,418 bytes)
5. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: gallon" <jamagallon@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 02:03:41 +0200; hashing patch for lookups. 2) RCU'ing read access to the device list.; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00887.html (7,952 bytes)
6. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:45:22 -0700; k cables being plugged in or out by bringing a network interface up o; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00890.html (10,066 bytes)
7. 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00:19 +1000; Hi, We hit the 100 network naming limit :) Yes the comment is correct, we need to fix the algorithm. dev_base_lock really starts to show up (eg in dev_get_by_index), especially when doing IO to raw s; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01846.html (7,944 bytes)
8. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:08:55 +0200; You could just add a bitmap with a reasonable upper limit (1024?) and use find_first_zero_bit() I doubt doing that would be very intrusive. -Andi; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01847.html (7,845 bytes)
9. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:46:39 -0700; Anyway as a short term fix Jamal suggested making a sysctl for this maximum. If fixing this all properly is out of the question for 2.6, would the sysctl approach be satisfactory? The other option i; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01852.html (9,513 bytes)
10. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:41:43 -0700; Right, it's also not going to fix the locking problems. I would suggest two things: 1) Ben's hashing patch for lookups. 2) RCU'ing read access to the device list.; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01858.html (8,558 bytes)
11. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 02:03:41 +0200; When someone renames eth1 to eth2 and the bitmap doesn't have eth2 set and selects it then you can just retry, searching for further free bits. When someone renames eth2 to eth1 the rename code shoul; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01859.html (8,092 bytes)
12. Re: 100 network limit (score: 1): Author: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:45:22 -0700; Since you can rename devices, that might not work. A long time ago I hashed the devices, both by name and by index...that gives good lookup performance, at least. As for create-time issues, that is; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01862.html (9,975 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]