David Miller wrote: > From: Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [] >>> - Use u32 for routing table IDs everywhere inside the kernel >> Just out of curiocity: why current limit of 2^31 isn't sufficient? >> Or am I missing the point? > > The current limit is 256 because the table member of the struct > used to configure them is an 8-bit quantity. > > That's the whole purpose of Patrick's patch set, to provide a new > optional attribute that allows specifying a 32-bit rather than > the 8-bit table ID.
Aha, it was 256, not 2^31. I remember now. So the question probably should have been like, why u32 and additional attribute (to represent former -1) instead of current int? I mean, it probably makes no difference whenever there are 2^32 or 2^31 tables (both values are pretty large), but 2^32 requires more changes for the existing code. And while we're at it... How about using table *names* instead of numbers in kernel too, a-la iptables? Once possible number of tables is large, and we're using hashes for tables now anyway, keeping a name inside the table structure wont hurt ;) /mjt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
