[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eedea44e-24de-e6f7-c42f-a13461d16d6a@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:32:40 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: jiri@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
dledford@...hat.com, sean.hefty@...el.com,
hal.rosenstock@...il.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] net: Fix netdev adjacency tracking
On 10/13/16 1:34 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
> Although I didn't like the "all-list" idea when Veaceslav pushed it
> because it looked to me like a big hammer, it turned out to be very handy
> and quick for traversing neighbours. Why it cannot be fixed?
>
> The walks with possibly hundreds of function calls instead of a single
> list traverse worries me.
>
I have been looking at this code for a week now. Every solution I came up with that solved the original problems introduced new ones -- usually with adjacency remove expecting an adjacency that did not exist. In the end I came to the conclusion it is not possible to maintain an all_adj_list when the upper tree can have multiple paths to the top device. If someone thinks otherwise I am happy to test a patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists