On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:35:52 -0700 Dave Taht dave.taht@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 8:18 AM Andrew Lunn andrew@lunn.ch wrote:
Infrastructure changes must be done as part of the patch that needs the new feature bit. It might be that your feature bit is not accepted as part of the review cycle, or a better alternative is proposed.
Hi Stephan
I agree with what you are saying, but i also think there is no way to avoid needing more feature bits. So even if the new feature bit itself is rejected, the code to allow it could be useful.
I would rather passionately like to expand several old currently 16 bit fields in tc and iptables to 32 bits, and break the 1000 user limitation we have in things like this:
Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to the heavy lifting of having a UAPI compatibility layer for this.