Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263506AbTKCXzM (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:55:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263513AbTKCXzM (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:55:12 -0500 Received: from 64-60-75-69.cust.telepacific.net ([64.60.75.69]:64012 "EHLO racerx.ixiacom.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263506AbTKCXzK (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:55:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3FA6F628.70305@ixiacom.com> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:43:20 -0800 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030617 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fleury@cs.auc.dk, linux-kernel Subject: allocating netlink families? (was: re: Announce: NetKeeper Firewall For Linux) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 789 Lines: 21 Emmanuel Fleury wrote: > http://www.cs.auc.dk/~fleury/netkeeper/ Hey, that seems to be a nice example of how to write a new netlink family. Thanks! I see you're using NETLINK_USERSOCK. Netlink families appear to be a precious commodity (netlink_dev.c, at least, will break if you raise MAX_LINKS above 32). Has there been any discussion of how one should pick netlink family numbers for new stuff like netkeeper? Sure, everyone could use NETLINK_USERSOCK, but that means only one new netlink module could be resident at a time... - Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/