netdev - Re: [v1 PATCH 2/7] rhashtable: Allow hash/comparison functions to be inlined

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:20:42 +0000
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v1 PATCH 2/7] rhashtable: Allow hash/comparison functions to be
 inlined

On 20.03, Herbert Xu wrote:
> This patch deals with the complaint that we make indirect function
> calls on the fast paths unnecessarily in rhashtable.  We resolve
> it by moving the fast paths into inline functions that take struct
> rhashtable_param (which obviously must be the same set of parameters
> supplied to rhashtable_init) as an argument.

I haven't checked in detail yet whether this still satisfies what
we need in nftables, just a minor comment below:

> +struct rhashtable_compare_arg {
> +	struct rhashtable *ht;
> +	const void *key;
> +};

I found it a bit odd in the old interface that elementary data
such as the key for comparision is encapsulated into a structure
instead of passed as a function argument. Is there a reason
for not passing both as arguments so we can at least avoid the
encapsulation for the common case?
--
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