From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:49:37 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1266271241-6293-1-git-send-email-opurdila@ixiacom.com> <201002162004.33533.opurdila@ixiacom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Linux Kernel Developers , Amerigo Wang To: Octavian Purdila Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201002162004.33533.opurdila@ixiacom.com> (Octavian Purdila's message of "Tue\, 16 Feb 2010 20\:04\:33 +0200") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Octavian Purdila writes: > Hi Eric, thanks for going over this. > > The use case (large bitmaps/lists) is different enough from what we have today > (small bitmaps) and that is why I think that we need this new interface. > > If I get bitmap_parse_user correctly, for a 64k bitmap it expects a 2K comma > separated values. That is not the most intuitively way for the user to set a > list of ports he wants to reserve. In this case I expect an interface of comma separated ranges would be ideal. Typically compact, and modifiable by writing the new value to the file. I think the default value would be something like 32768-61000. > Using 64K files has the same practical issues (the user would have to cat all > 64K files to determine which ports are reserved) plus it has issues caused by > the large number of files: significant memory overhead and also significant time > for registering those files. "grep -l 1 *" isn't particularly difficult, and it would be one sysctl registration call. It is true that the sysctl memory footprint would be a pain in that case. Eric