lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 1 Wire drivers illegally overload NETLINK_NFLOG
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:05:59PM -0400, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <20050723125427.GA11177@rama> (at Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:54:27 -0400), Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org> says:
>
> > --- a/include/linux/netlink.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/netlink.h
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> > #define NETLINK_IP6_FW 13
> > #define NETLINK_DNRTMSG 14 /* DECnet routing messages */
> > #define NETLINK_KOBJECT_UEVENT 15 /* Kernel messages to userspace */
> > -#define NETLINK_TAPBASE 16 /* 16 to 31 are ethertap */
> > +#define NETLINK_W1 16 /* 16 to 31 are ethertap */
> >
> > #define MAX_LINKS 32
> >
>
> Comment says that 16-31 are used for ethertap.
> So, probably assigh NETLINK_W1 at 32, and bump MAX_LINKS?

MAX_LINKS > 32 would result in larger statically allocated pointer
arrays. It would also only work if NPROTO is increased too, IIRC.

I strongly disrecommend increasing NPROTO. Maybe we should look into
reusing NETLINK_FIREWALL (which was an old 2.2.x kernel interface).

But to be honest, I don't really care all that much as long as existing
and still very actively used values are not just overloaded.

--
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org> http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
"Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-23 05:48    [W:0.063 / U:16.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site