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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 11:14:10 -0800 From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com> Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 2/5] bpf: introduce timeout map On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 1:14 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:29 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:35 AM Andrii Nakryiko > > <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote: > > > Minimize duplication of the code, no one said copy/paste all the code. > > > But memory bloat is a real problem and should be justification enough > > > to at least consider other options. > > > > Sure, I have no problem with this. The question is how do we balance? > > Is rewriting 200 lines of code to save 8 bytes of each entry acceptable? > > What about rewriting 2000 lines of code? Do people prefer to review 200 > > or 2000 (or whatever number) lines of code? Or people just want a > > minimal change for easier reviews? > > No worry any more. I manage to find some way to reuse the existing I never worried. But I'm glad you figured it out. > members, that is lru_node. So the end result is putting gc stuff into > the union with lru_node without increasing the size of htab_elem. > And of course, without duplicating/refactoring regular htab code. > > Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists