From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement IP_UNICAST_IF socket option. Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:43:13 +0100 Message-ID: <1328283793.2157.33.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> References: <1328218567-3134-1-git-send-email-ehoover@mines.edu> <1328219828.2480.32.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1328222744.2480.38.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1328263278.2157.5.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Linux Netdev To: "Erich E. Hoover" Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:41724 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753668Ab2BCPnR (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:43:17 -0500 Received: by wics10 with SMTP id s10so2702767wic.19 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:43:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le vendredi 03 f=C3=A9vrier 2012 =C3=A0 08:21 -0700, Erich E. Hoover a = =C3=A9crit : > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Eric Dumazet = wrote: > > ... > > BTW, do we really want the htonl() thing, and force device indexes = in > > 2^24 range ? This seems odd anyway. > > ... >=20 > I can easily perform both of these steps in Wine. The 2^24 limitatio= n > in particular seems artificial, and especially silly to add to the > kernel if it will change the fundamental range of the indices. With > regard to htonl(), David Miller indicated that the API should match > what other systems use (a 32-bit network byte order word), though he > may not have meant his comment that specifically. I can see the > merits of doing it both ways and I'm not particularly attached to > either one. I have no strong feeling, I only wanted to point out our current device indexes range is [1 .. (2^31 - 1) ]