David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>
> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:11:09 -0800
>
>> + lock = rht_bucket_lock(tbl, hash);
>> +
>> + spin_lock_bh(lock);
>> +
>> + pprev = &tbl->buckets[hash];
>> + rht_for_each(he, tbl, hash) {
>> + if (he != obj_old) {
>> + pprev = &he->next;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(obj_new->next, obj_old->next);
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(*pprev, obj_new);
>> + err = 0;
>> + break;
>
> Are you sure this works fine in the presence of both parallel readers and
> table expansion passes?
Good question.
What's more this is something that can be easily implemented
outside of rhashtable, i.e., by hashing a pointer to the actual
object rather than the object itself. So I'd like to see some
pretty good reasons for penny-pinching on memory and adding more
complexity to rhashtable.
Cheers,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
