From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] [-mm] ACPI: export ACPI events via netlink Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:04:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4684F567.1040301@trash.net> References: <1179827251.7707.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1179831825.4121.30.camel@localhost> <1180258853.7707.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4466a10705270629h31977813hd2fc8330bcd87f78@mail.gmail.com> <4466a10705270634j3560c9a3j9c3630ddc20a24aa@mail.gmail.com> <1181811576.5411.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1181820510.4091.9.camel@localhost> <1181869285.5411.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1182178882.4063.11.camel@localhost> <1182223964.5411.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1182811210.6644.22.camel@johannes.berg> <1182986681.5155.55.camel@localhost> <1183023939.4769.76.camel@johannes.berg> <4684F25B.5090607@trash.net> <1183118395.4089.47.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, Zhang Rui , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "linux-acpi@vger" , lenb@kernel.org, Thomas Graf To: Johannes Berg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1183118395.4089.47.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 13:51 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>Do multicast groups have to have a seperate name? Or would it suffice >>to have them associated with the genl family and be able to find out >>the starting group number? In that case something like >> >>struct genl_mc_groups { >> struct genl_family *family or char *family_name or similar; >> unsigned int group_off; >> unsigned int group_num; >> unsigned long groups[]; >>}; >> >>seems to make more sense since you only need a single struct >>per family. > > > Hm. For me that'd work too but Jamal wanted dynamically allocated groups > if I understood him correctly. I'm not too concerned with that case, I'd > think most people know the groups up-front. On the other hand, I can see > something like a group per netdev or whatever other instance too. Maybe use a mix. Use the bitmap, but allow families to register multiple of them. In the common case it would only be a single one, but it would be possible to register groups dynamically. >>Why would you care about holes? If you really want to use sparse >>bitmaps that would complicate the code a lot. > > > No, not sparse bitmaps, but the bitmap could have a hole when a family > goes away, and we could reuse that group number later. If we have it in > a bitmap we know without checking all group IDs. Right.