From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, Ilia K <mail4ilia@gmail.com>,
Tom Goff <thomas.goff@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ipmr: Fix struct mfcctl to be independent of MAXVIFS v2
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:57:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BBB67FE.6020209@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1eiis8uc6.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On 04/06/2010 08:38 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Right now if you recompile the kernel increasing MAXVIFS
> to support more VIFS users of the MRT_ADD_VIF and MRT_DEL_VIF
> will break because the ABI changed.
>
> My goal is an API that works with just a recompile of existing
> applications, and an ABI that continues to work for old
> applications.
>
> The unused/dead fields at the end of struct mfcctl make this
> exercise more difficult than it should be.
>
> - Rename the existing struct mfcctl mfcctl_old.
> - Define a new and larger struct mfcctl that we can detect
> by size.
>
> The new and larger struct mfcctl won't have trailing garbage
> fields so we can accept anything of that size or larger,
> and simply ignore the entries that are above MAXVIFS.
>
> My new struct mfcctl is now 128 bytes which is noticeable on
> the stack but should still be small enough not to cause problems.
>
> v2: Rework the support larger arrays so that most/all? existing
> applications can simply be recompiled and work with a larger
> maximum number of VIFS.
If we're going to change the ABI, can we not support an arbitrary
number of VIFS instead of just a larger fixed maximum?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-06 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-06 12:16 [RFC][PATCH] ipmr: Fix struct mfcctl to be independent of MAXVIFS Eric W. Biederman
2010-04-06 15:38 ` [RFC][PATCH] ipmr: Fix struct mfcctl to be independent of MAXVIFS v2 Eric W. Biederman
2010-04-06 16:57 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2010-04-06 17:23 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BBB67FE.6020209@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=mail4ilia@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.goff@boeing.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).