[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200614005353.fb4083bed70780feee2fd19a@uniroma2.it>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 00:53:53 +0200
From: Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Donald Sharp <sharpd@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Dinesh Dutt <didutt@...il.com>,
Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>,
Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...t.it>,
Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels@...il.com>,
Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC,net-next, 2/5] vrf: track associations between VRF devices
and tables
Hi Stephen,
thanks for your questions.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:28:59 -0700
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> > +
> > + * Conversely, shared_table is decreased when a vrf is de-associated
> > + * from a table with exactly two associated vrfs.
> > + */
> > + int shared_tables;
>
> Should this be unsigned?
> Should it be a fixed size?
Yes. I think an u32 would be reasonable for the shared_table.
What do you think?
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists