On Fri, Mar 30 2018, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 06:52:34PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> >> Should rhashtable_walk_peek be kept around even if there are no more >> users? I have my doubts. > > Absolutely. All netlink dumps using rhashtable_walk_next are buggy > and need to switch over to rhashtable_walk_peek. As otherwise > the object that triggers the out-of-space condition will be skipped > upon resumption.
Do we really need a rhashtable_walk_peek() interface?
I imagine that a seqfile ->start function can do:
if (*ppos == 0 && last_pos != 0) {
rhashtable_walk_exit(&iter);
rhashtable_walk_enter(&table, &iter);
last_pos = 0;
}
rhashtable_walk_start(&iter);
if (*ppos == last_pos && iter.p)
return iter.p;
last_pos = *ppos;
return rhashtable_walk_next(&iter)
and the ->next function just does
last_pos = *ppos;
*ppos += 1;
do p = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter); while (IS_ERR(p));
return p;
It might be OK to have a function call instead of expecting people to
use iter.p directly.
static inline void *rhashtable_walk_prev(struct rhashtable_iter *iter)
{
return iter->p;
}
Thoughts?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
