Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:21:25 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Anuranjan Shukla <anshukla@juniper.net> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcelm@juniper.net>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IFNAMSIZ/IF_NAMESIZE change proposal Message-ID: <19C0CA7F-2857-4533-B5E7-29E1085DE072@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <9527D72E-5871-4C5E-B2AB-A3BECA4925D4@juniper.net> References: <9527D72E-5871-4C5E-B2AB-A3BECA4925D4@juniper.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19C0CA7F-2857-4533-B5E7-29E1085DE072>