[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180515033719.t2jphtfjofc5v7ag@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 11:37:20 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: dave@...olabs.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tgraf@...g.ch,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dbueso@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/rhashtable: reorder some inititalization sequences
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:52:13PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 08:13:32 -0700
>
> > rhashtable_init() allocates memory at the very end of the
> > call, once everything is setup; with the exception of the
> > nelems parameter. However, unless the user is doing something
> > bogus with params for which -EINVAL is returned, memory
> > allocation is the only operation that can trigger the call
> > to fail.
> >
> > Thus move bucket_table_alloc() up such that we fail back to
> > the caller asap, instead of doing useless checks. This is
> > safe as the the table allocation isn't using the halfly
> > setup 'ht' structure and bucket_table_alloc() call chain only
> > ends up using the ht->nulls_base member in INIT_RHT_NULLS_HEAD.
> >
> > Also move the locking initialization down to the end.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
>
> The user potentially "doing something bogus" is why the most
> expensive part of the initialization (the memory allocation)
> is done after everything else is validated.
>
> I think it's best to keep things as-is.
I agree.
Thanks,
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists