From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 14 16:44:15 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB788F34 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:44:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com (mail-pb0-f47.google.com [209.85.160.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90CD62F0A for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rr4so2444285pbb.34 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:44:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=UuM2F4Cd7SGqOWVDzT4jPsStz/HsrmK1gJpu6DlJwRc=; b=bDvVBCNlpcukzka8piqcJbtWGPyldnNWdKfLPe8dFJRHd+vvv4JZF4soh6ctz7Z4Nj JaAp9otgs6PK/ASeZdO4aq+4BREHjQAWa2bJ/Ui1mzxK0I4ban6cLlhid9WYCNuqkSnD msAlRlGDqaGaf3lfkpZsMX7kbW2PAQPxMhH4RhhnDEf+Xdfl2RnsouDR3k63NW4LuIMP F0yKdZ2nlwcvEtfKM/KSgcHv5r9bv548Il39anMjd9OldapoPHSG7xJ+GH1mt7PnDvMF nvhkvYUB7uR7un8SXvQBZsvZcxsiBSUOgp67RqtxPGFzj3Aq+Amt6UDFNnc5mONtzxKR CigQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9hSVirCJSU+ezQOabiopipPnaAKbMvgjSy6yu0QYhu67S4tAvjycUjSdrDVyKao23JY6B X-Received: by 10.66.26.112 with SMTP id k16mr21187903pag.65.1379175686312; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 53.imp.bsdimp.com (50-78-194-198-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [50.78.194.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vz4sm26015491pab.11.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh Subject: Re: IFNAMSIZ/IF_NAMESIZE change proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <9527D72E-5871-4C5E-B2AB-A3BECA4925D4@juniper.net> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:21:25 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <19C0CA7F-2857-4533-B5E7-29E1085DE072@bsdimp.com> References: <9527D72E-5871-4C5E-B2AB-A3BECA4925D4@juniper.net> To: Anuranjan Shukla X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , Marcel Moolenaar , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:44:15 -0000 On Sep 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Anuranjan Shukla wrote: > At Juniper Networks, interface name size was needed to be longer than = what FreeBSD has. We're trying to reduce our local changes to FreeBSD to = allow us an easier time upgrading to newer FreeBSD releases, and support = the modularization of the network stack we'd proposed earlier. I'm = sending this out to propose changing IFNAMSIZ from 16 to 60 (this is = the size we use) in FreeBSD. We don't see any downside (other than = increasing the ifreq structure size for one) to doing this, as allowing = longer interface names can be handy for vendors. I'd like to hear if = there's a strong objection to this. If not, we'd like to get this into = to the FreeBSD codebase. Any thoughts/objections highly appreciated. 56 or 64 would be better for alignment, wouldn't it? Warner