From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, Ilia K <mail4ilia@gmail.com>,
Tom Goff <thomas.goff@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ipmr: Fix struct mfcctl to be independent of MAXVIFS v2
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:57:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BBB67FE.6020209@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1eiis8uc6.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On 04/06/2010 08:38 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Right now if you recompile the kernel increasing MAXVIFS
> to support more VIFS users of the MRT_ADD_VIF and MRT_DEL_VIF
> will break because the ABI changed.
>
> My goal is an API that works with just a recompile of existing
> applications, and an ABI that continues to work for old
> applications.
>
> The unused/dead fields at the end of struct mfcctl make this
> exercise more difficult than it should be.
>
> - Rename the existing struct mfcctl mfcctl_old.
> - Define a new and larger struct mfcctl that we can detect
> by size.
>
> The new and larger struct mfcctl won't have trailing garbage
> fields so we can accept anything of that size or larger,
> and simply ignore the entries that are above MAXVIFS.
>
> My new struct mfcctl is now 128 bytes which is noticeable on
> the stack but should still be small enough not to cause problems.
>
> v2: Rework the support larger arrays so that most/all? existing
> applications can simply be recompiled and work with a larger
> maximum number of VIFS.
If we're going to change the ABI, can we not support an arbitrary
number of VIFS instead of just a larger fixed maximum?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-06 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-06 12:16 [RFC][PATCH] ipmr: Fix struct mfcctl to be independent of MAXVIFS Eric W. Biederman
2010-04-06 15:38 ` [RFC][PATCH] ipmr: Fix struct mfcctl to be independent of MAXVIFS v2 Eric W. Biederman
2010-04-06 16:57 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2010-04-06 17:23 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BBB67FE.6020209@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=mail4ilia@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.goff@boeing.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.