From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:57:08 +0800 Message-ID: <4B7C11D4.1080309@redhat.com> References: <1266271241-6293-1-git-send-email-opurdila@ixiacom.com> <201002162151.04861.opurdila@ixiacom.com> <201002162322.13101.opurdila@ixiacom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Linux Kernel Developers , Eric Dumazet To: Octavian Purdila Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201002162322.13101.opurdila@ixiacom.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Octavian Purdila wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 22:08:13 you wrote: >>> Something like bellow? >>> >>> # set bits 8080 and 1666 >>> $echo 8080 1666-1666 > /proc >>> >>> #reset bit 1666 >>> $echo 8080 > /proc >>> >>> #reset whole bitmap >>> $echo > /proc >> Yes. So something like that. >> >> I think I would use commas instead of spaces as that is more traditional. Why this is better than the current version? For the single port case, currently we use: echo +8080 > /xxxx #set echo -8080 > /xxxx #clear Now we will use: echo 8080 > /xxxx #set echo 8080 > /xxxx #clear I don't think the latter is better... For the multi-port case, yes, we should accept 'echo 8080,10000 >/xxxx'. >> > > OK, I was trying to reuse the existing skip whitespace code :) but if you > think its cleaner with commas I can do that. > >>> Note that this new proc entry will work in conjunction with the existing >>> ip_local_port_range option, so the default bitmap can (and should be) >>> empty. Yes, we don't know which ports the user wants to reserve. >> Do we want userspace to see this implementation detail? Two data structures >> doing the almost the same thing could get confusing in a hurry. It feels >> like a recipe for changing one and not the other and then running around >> trying to figure out why the change did not work. >> > > Yes, I believe we want to have reserved_ports contain just those special ports > that the user wants to reserve. After all we add this entry for this specific > purpose. > This is why I insist we should make sure all ports accepted by ip_local_reserved_ports must be in ip_local_port_range.