Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:33:53 -0400 | From | Harald Welte <> | Subject | Re: [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] | |