Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 21:00:34 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: RFC: unit_list routines Message-ID: <200105232000.f4NK0YF10017@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> of "Wed, 23 May 2001 15:47:50 EDT." <200105231947.PAA32360@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> <<On Wed, 23 May 2001 20:44:33 +0100, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> said:
>
> > Ok, I've thought about this :-/ I don't think it's practical to
> > do this with bits if someone does
>
> > # ppp -unit 16777215
>
> You then return ERANGE or ENXIO or something of the sort. At some
> point, you eventually have to say ``no''.
The ``no'' point is already defined as 0xffffff (16777215). Wanting
to allocate that many units is silly, but allocating a high unit
number is perfectly valid and is already done in many drivers.
Should those drivers be prevented from using this (proposed) standard
way of tracking unit numbers ?
> -GAWollman
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105232000.f4NK0YF10017>