Re: [net-next PATCH v4 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications usingfixed port

[Cong Wang]

Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 22:08:13 you wrote:
> > > Something like bellow?
> > >
> > > # set bits 8080 and 1666
> > > $echo 8080 1666-1666 > /proc
> > >
> > > #reset bit 1666
> > > $echo 8080 > /proc
> > >
> > > #reset whole bitmap
> > > $echo > /proc
> > Yes. So something like that.
> >
> > I think I would use commas instead of spaces as that is more traditional.


Why this is better than the current version?

For the single port case, currently we use:

echo +8080 > /xxxx #set
echo -8080 > /xxxx #clear

Now we will use:

echo 8080 > /xxxx #set
echo 8080 > /xxxx #clear

I don't think the latter is better...

For the multi-port case, yes, we should accept 'echo 8080,10000 >/xxxx'.


> >
>
> OK, I was trying to reuse the existing skip whitespace code :) but if you 
> think its cleaner with commas I can do that.
>
> > > Note that this new proc entry will work in conjunction with the existing
> > > ip_local_port_range option, so the default bitmap can (and should be)
> > > empty.

Yes, we don't know which ports the user wants to reserve.


> > Do we want userspace to see this implementation detail? Two data structures
> >  doing the almost the same thing could get confusing in a hurry.  It feels
> >  like a recipe for changing one and not the other and then running around
> >  trying to figure out why the change did not work.
>
> Yes, I believe we want to have reserved_ports contain just those special ports 
> that the user wants to reserve. After all we add this entry for this specific 
> purpose. 

This is why I insist we should make sure all ports accepted by
ip_local_reserved_ports must be in ip_local_port_range.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/