[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1502895438.4936.121.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:57:18 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
mawilcox@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next repost 1/3] idr: Use unsigned long instead of
int
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 13:06 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:58:53PM CEST, eric.dumazet@...il.com wrote:
> >On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 12:53 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >
> >> rhashtable is unnecesary big hammer for this. IDR is nice fit for
> >> this purpose.
> >
> >Obviously IDR does not fit, since you have to change its ABI.
>
> I don't think it is a problem to adjust something to your needs.
> Moreover, if it's API is misdesigned from the beginning. We are just
> putting IDR back on track, cleaning it's API. I don't see anything wrong
> on that. Everyone would benefit.
Except that your patch is gigantic, and nobody really can review it.
You could define idr_alloc_ext() maybe.
Then provide a patch series grouped so that each maintainer can review
its part.
Or leave legacy code using the old idr_alloc() in place.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists