From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jiri@resnulli.us>
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Message-ID: <20120816054859.GA1769@minipsycho.orion>
References: <1344956748-2099-2-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us>
	<1344983624.2690.77.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
	<20120815074612.GB1726@minipsycho.orion>
	<20120815.151549.1835466517645273818.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120815.151549.1835466517645273818.davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [patch net-next v2 01/15] net: introduce upper device
	lists
List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging <bridge.lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bridge>, 
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bridge/>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge>,
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 05:49:07 -0000
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, ursula.braun@de.ibm.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com, edumazet@google.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, sean.hefty@intel.com, therbert@google.com, roland@kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, fubar@us.ibm.com, fbl@redhat.com, hal.rosenstock@gmail.com, faisal.latif@intel.com, linux-driver@qlogic.com, blaschka@linux.vnet.ibm.com, sony.chacko@qlogic.com, gregory.v.rose@intel.com, bhutchings@solarflare.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jitendra.kalsaria@qlogic.com, divy@chelsio.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joe@perches.com, linux390@de.ibm.com, kaber@trash.net

Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:15:49AM CEST, davem@davemloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:46:12 +0200
>
>> You are probably right. I'm not sure how to handle this correctly
>> though. Adding some hard limit number might not be correct.
>
>I would just use a hard limit of something like 8 for now, and if we
>need to expand this limit we can consider how to do so with real known
>usage in mind rather than pure speculation.

Okay. I will repost the set soon.