| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:05:59 -0700 |
| Cc: | laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lmb@xxxxxxx, ahu@xxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <E1CKkWZ-0005x5-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20041021142527.GG3551@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1CKkWZ-0005x5-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:31:07 +1000 Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Initially I considered an interface where kernel users can register > themselves using a string as the key. But I soon realised that we > could simply allow the netlink_family field to be an arbitrary integer > that is used as a key to a hash table. (I assume you mean "nl_family" not "netlink_family" :-) > The CPU cost of the hash table isn't too bad since you'll only be > looking it up when the socket is created. I'm fine with this idea, however please tell me how you intend to make things like ->getname() behave? I would also suggest to start with values > AF_MAX, so that people sticking other AF_* values in there by accident are caught. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.9-mm1: pc_debug multiple definitions, Russell King |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target), Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target), Evgeniy Polyakov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Allowing netlink_family to be any integer (was: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target), Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |