[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180718131446.GC4949@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 06:14:46 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Varsha Rao <rvarsha016@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ida tree
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > interacting with commit
> >
> > 9679150a0bd5 ("netfilter: nf_tables: Use id allocation")
> >
> > from the netfilter-next tree.
>
> @Varsha, I'm very sorry, but I guess I have to toss your patch, I
> would prefer avoid dependencies with the IDA API by now.
I've had a chance to read this patch a bit more carefully. It transforms
one anti-pattern into another, so I can't say I'm a fan.
The first is specific to the networking code; having a list of things
with IDs, and constructing a bitmap when we need to allocate a new ID.
The second is having both an IDA and a list of things.
The more effective way to do all of this is to use an IDR. You can get
rid of the linked list *and* the IDA, and it's faster to iterate over.
The root of the IDR is the same size as the list_head, and then you need
only store the 4-byte ID in each element instead of the 16-byte list_head.
So Varsha, if you would like to take a look at transforming table->sets
from a LIST_HEAD to an IDR, I think that would be a great use of your
time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists