On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:55:00PM +0100, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: [...] > > > > Why not just some specific operation to set a new ip_set_max value and > > > > readjust the array of sets in that case? Thus, the user is in full > > > > control of the maximum number of sets and we don't have to assume > > > > anything. > > > > > > That'd need another knob - this way the array is increased as needed. > > > The user doesn't have to count the required sets in advance, just create. > > > > Yes, that would require some new netlink command. I tend to prefer > > explicit configuration options. My concern is that day someone will > > come and say that 2^16 are not enough for them. Then, we'll have to > > add some explicit upper limit and allow to modify it. > > That'd be non trivial, because the whole array should then be replaced > with something else for faster access from user space when the set is > searched by name. The kernel always refers to the index. I think the index is fine as a way to search. > > But I'm all fine if you like it this way. We can just document that > > the new maximum amount of sets 65536. > > It's "documented" in the input range of the "Maximum number of IP > sets" configuration parameter in Kconfig. Should I add it explicitely to > the help text? Or directly to the title line? Some information in the changelog would be sufficient. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
