# Re: 100 network limit

- From: Ben Greear \<hidden\>
- Date: 2003-08-28 21:46:39 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2003/08/10736157
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2003/08/10736154/t.md

```text
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00:19 +1000
> Anton Blanchard [ref] wrote:
>
>
>
>>Anyway as a short term fix Jamal suggested making a sysctl for this
>>maximum. If fixing this all properly is out of the question for 2.6,
>>would the sysctl approach be satisfactory? The other option is to just
>>bump the limit and recognise that the user is on his own if performance
>>sucks.
>
>
> You could just add a bitmap with a reasonable upper limit (1024?) and use find_first_zero_bit()  I doubt doing that would be very intrusive.
>
> -Andi

Since you can rename devices, that might not work.  A long time ago I
hashed the devices, both by name and by index...that gives good lookup performance, at least.  As for
create-time issues, that is definately slow path, and even searching linearly
4 or 8k devices is not a big deal (in my opinion).  So, why not make the hard-coded
100 limit be more like 8196 or something really large?  (It could still be adjustable
if needed.)

Ben

-- 
Ben Greear [ref]
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
```