Based on my offline discussions with Jesse I arrived, rather arbitrarily, at the number 214. I don't know enough about the kernel to judge what a good number choice would be. Jesse seemed to think larger was better. I'll use whatever the two of you think is best.
Ethan On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:31, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:10:55PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> > Where does the number 214 come from? >> >> Experimentally I found that the number had to be fairly small. I >> wanted it to be large enough to be unlikely conflict to values the >> proper way. I also wanted a number which was arbitrary to avoid >> conflicting with other people who may be improperly hardcoding values >> like this. > > We already use genetlink groups 16 through 31 (see > datapath/linux/compat/genetlink-openvswitch.c) and group 32 (see > datapath/linux/compat/genetlink-brcompat.c). I don't think it makes > sense to skip all the way to 214. Even in 2.6.37 I only see a total > of 11 defined genetlink multicast groups, so I doubt that anyone's > going to backport a bunch of them to RHEL 5. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
