Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:30:45 +0000 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcelm@juniper.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Anuranjan Shukla <anshukla@juniper.net> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IFNAMSIZ/IF_NAMESIZE change proposal Message-ID: <CE59EAD5.131C1%marcelm@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <19C0CA7F-2857-4533-B5E7-29E1085DE072@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/14/13 9:21 AM, "Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > >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? Yes, but then we need to change Junos' definition to match FreeBSD's and we're not sure yet if that's at all possible. Hence the suggestion to use what we have at Juniper. If a "nicer" length is preferred, then we'll see about making that happen. Thoughts? --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcelm@juniper.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CE59EAD5.131C1%marcelm>