[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150313234221.GA9020@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:42:21 +1100
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] rhashtable: Fix walker behaviour during rehash
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:50:23PM +0000, Thomas Graf wrote:
>
> Is there a reason to keeping rhashtable_walk_init() and
> rhashtable_walk_start() separate? It seems like one always has
> to call init for each iteration as start does not reset the
> iterator bits. It would also safe a mutex_lock().
Yes they are needed for netlink users, e.g., netfilter. Proc
users will always init/start while netlink users can init, and
then just use start/stop to keep their state.
> > @@ -826,17 +832,18 @@ next:
> > iter->skip = 0;
> > }
> >
> > - iter->p = NULL;
> > -
> > -out:
> > - if (iter->walker->resize) {
> > - iter->p = NULL;
> > + iter->walker->tbl = rht_dereference_rcu(ht->future_tbl, ht);
> > + if (iter->walker->tbl != tbl) {
>
> I was confused at first because this would cause to always dump the
> table twice in the regular case. I see that in patch 6/6 you change
> the meaning of future_tbl and only make it non-NULL during the short
> period of the rehashing. Ordering patch 6 in front of 1 would have
> helped ;-)
>
> Looks good in combination with patch 6.
No this patch is needed on its own and should not depend on patch 6
in any way.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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