From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH] net: fast consecutive name allocation Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:59:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091113.185937.251557071.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20091113233504.GQ19478@kvack.org> <20091113153924.6130135f@nehalam> <20091113235210.GR19478@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, opurdila@ixiacom.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: bcrl@lhnet.ca Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:34003 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753908AbZKNC7V (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:59:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091113235210.GR19478@kvack.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Benjamin LaHaise Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:52:10 -0500 > If you don't want the overhead from this kind of scaling, stick it under a > config option, but please don't stop other people from pushing Linux into > new uses which have these scaling requirements. This 'scaling requirement' only exists in environments where people undersubsribe their networks, right? I'm not saying we won't put scaling into these areas, I'm just trying to make a point to show that this "need" only exists because people have purposefully created these situations where they feel the need to massively control their users usage in order to generate revenue.