Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 05:42:24 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allocating AF constants for vendors. Message-ID: <20070904124224.GF87451@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <46DD2F3A.20904@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070821232956.GT87451@elvis.mu.org> <46CC45F0.3000105@FreeBSD.org> <20070902211945.GQ87451@elvis.mu.org> <46DC1E51.3040707@FreeBSD.org> <20070903201133.GU87451@elvis.mu.org> <46DD2F3A.20904@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bruce M. Simpson <bms@FreeBSD.org> [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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070904124224.GF87451>