From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:19:37 +0200
> David S. Miller wrote:
> > So we can increase MAX_LINKS to 256 and that's what I think I will do
> > for 2.6.14 unless there is a very serious objection. The tables sized
> > by MAX_LINKS in af_netlink.c are dynamic
David S. Miller wrote:
So we can increase MAX_LINKS to 256 and that's what I think I will do
for 2.6.14 unless there is a very serious objection. The tables sized
by MAX_LINKS in af_netlink.c are dynamically allocated, and the only
linear iterations over MAX_LINKS are for the netlink socket proc
Ok, here is what I'm going to do for 2.6.13 and in the longer
term.
First, we can give the current NETLINK_ARPD value to iSCSI
as it is unused since before I can even remember.
Second, ROUTE6 and TAPBASE we can kill from the header file
as both are unused as well.
In the longer term, Patrick is
