From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Apr 29 14:34:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AB8152D4 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:34:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13]) by wall.polstra.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09442; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:34:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) From: John Polstra Received: (from jdp@localhost) by vashon.polstra.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id OAA20108; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:34:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:34:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199904292134.OAA20108@vashon.polstra.com> To: mike@sentex.net Subject: Re: Any action on PR 10570 ? getting closer to 65K :-( In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990429164427.00b69730@staff.sentex.ca> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Cc: stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <3.0.5.32.19990429164427.00b69730@staff.sentex.ca>, Mike Tancsa wrote: > I am currently using a couple of FreeBSD boxes for my border > routers, and it seems that the global routing table is getting > closer and closer to 65K+ routes (i.e. sooner than later I am going > to bump into PR 10570). I am not a systems programmer by any > stretch of the imagination, so I would not know how to go about > debugging anything and everything that would be effected by changing > the size from a short to a long. If you change the size in the header in your source tree, and then do a full make world and rebuild your kernel, I don't think you'll run into any problems. Oh, it's not inconceivable that some obscure port could be affected, but I'd be surprised. I'd recommend changing the field to an int (or maybe int32_t) rather than a long, though. A long on the Alpha is 64 bits, which is waaaay bigger than the reference count needs to be. A quick grep of the sources didn't show anything in userland that uses ifa_refcnt. So there shouldn't be any printf format mismatches from your change. (Changing a short to an int wouldn't cause any of them under any circumstances.) This is something that practically none of us can test, so you're in a unique position. :-) Your best bet is to change it yourself and try it. Assuming it works, follow-up your own PR with the patch and a statement that you've tested it without problems. It's more likely to get into the main source base if somebody has tested it under real-world conditions. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-interest is the aphrodisiac of belief." -- James V. DeLong To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message