On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 13:51 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Do multicast groups have to have a seperate name? Or would it suffice
> to have them associated with the genl family and be able to find out
> the starting group number? In that case something like
>
> struct genl_mc_groups {
> struct genl_family *family or char *family_name or similar;
> unsigned int group_off;
> unsigned int group_num;
> unsigned long groups[];
> };
>
> seems to make more sense since you only need a single struct
> per family.
Hm. For me that'd work too but Jamal wanted dynamically allocated groups
if I understood him correctly. I'm not too concerned with that case, I'd
think most people know the groups up-front. On the other hand, I can see
something like a group per netdev or whatever other instance too.
> Why would you care about holes? If you really want to use sparse
> bitmaps that would complicate the code a lot.
No, not sparse bitmaps, but the bitmap could have a hole when a family
goes away, and we could reuse that group number later. If we have it in
a bitmap we know without checking all group IDs.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
