(forw) Re: Allocating AF constants for vendors.

[Alfred Perlstein]

Bruce, I haven't heard back from you on this.  can you please comment?

I'd like to add the policy to the header.

----- Forwarded message from Alfred Perlstein <alfred at freebsd.org> -----

From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred at freebsd.org>
To: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms at FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Max Laier <max at love2party.net>, net at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Allocating AF constants for vendors.
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 05:42:24 -0700
Message-ID: <20070904124224.GF87451 at elvis.mu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: owner-freebsd-net at freebsd.org

* Bruce M. Simpson <bms at FreeBSD.org> [070904 03:08] wrote:
> >As you can see we are defering the "bloat".
> >Does that make sense?
> >  
> 
> I follow but it still doesn't really make sense.
> 
> Granted, you are deferring the growth of arrays sized off AF_MAX but 
> only ever by 1 slot.
> What if Vendor Z wants to add 25 entries at once?

Then as long as they allocate odd numbered entries they should
be fine.  FreeBSD's AF_MAX does not need to change to accomidate
a vendor, it only has to restrict itself to even numbered slots.

> We would also be tying ourselves down to the notion of a vendor in any 
> AF_ allocation. Is this an avenue that people are happy to pursue?

Yes, until the "horrific" problem of the statically sized arrays
is "fixed".  Then the allocation policy can change.


-- 
- Alfred Perlstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein