[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54DA2A13.5010204@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:56:03 -0600
From: Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
CC: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rhashtable: require max_shift definition
On 02/10/2015 02:30 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 01:58 AM, Thomas Graf wrote:
>> On 02/09/15 at 07:48pm, Josh Hunt wrote:
>>> if ((params->key_len && !params->hashfn) ||
>>> - (!params->key_len && !params->obj_hashfn))
>>> + (!params->key_len && !params->obj_hashfn) ||
>>> + (!params->max_shift))
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> You can drop the parenthesis around the new max_shift check.
>
> Also, I think the test should be expanded to check if there's
> a grow_decision given and only in that case require max_shift
> to be non-zero, otherwise we would require users who don't
> want to expand their table to give a upper expansion limit.
This is a good point. I'll make this change.
max_shift restricts the # of buckets, but should there be an optional
parameter, maxelems, to set a ceiling on the # of elements in a table
also? If not, I believe users will be able to add an "unlimited" # of
entries to the existing buckets, whether or not a grow_decision fn is
defined.
Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists