From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 5 22:14:51 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D60A16A421; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:14:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C04D13C468; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:14:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id C47F71A4D84; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:11:50 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: "Bruce M. Simpson" Message-ID: <20070905221150.GY87451@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: (forw) Re: Allocating AF constants for vendors. X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:14:51 -0000 Bruce, I haven't heard back from you on this. can you please comment? I'd like to add the policy to the header. ----- Forwarded message from Alfred Perlstein ----- From: Alfred Perlstein To: "Bruce M. Simpson" Cc: Max Laier , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allocating AF constants for vendors. Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 05:42:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20070904124224.GF87451@elvis.mu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org * Bruce M. Simpson [070904 03:08] wrote: > >As you can see we are defering the "bloat". > >Does that make sense? > > > > I follow but it still doesn't really make sense. > > Granted, you are deferring the growth of arrays sized off AF_MAX but > only ever by 1 slot. > What if Vendor Z wants to add 25 entries at once? Then as long as they allocate odd numbered entries they should be fine. FreeBSD's AF_MAX does not need to change to accomidate a vendor, it only has to restrict itself to even numbered slots. > We would also be tying ourselves down to the notion of a vendor in any > AF_ allocation. Is this an avenue that people are happy to pursue? Yes, until the "horrific" problem of the statically sized arrays is "fixed". Then the allocation policy can change. -- - Alfred Perlstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" ----- End forwarded message ----- -- - Alfred Perlstein