Hey Dave,
Thanks for the comments.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:03 AM David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Said another way: "The code isn't optimal with my compiler on my computer
> unless I force inline this" is not a valid reason to use __always_inline
Hah, that was my rationale exactly. Okay, no problem, I'll remove
those. And if I can't find a way to make the compiler to do the right
thing without it, and nothing looks overly insane, then I'll fix gcc
bugs separately.
> > + ((u64 *)dst)[0] = be64_to_cpu(((const __be64 *)src)[0]);
> > + ((u64 *)dst)[1] = be64_to_cpu(((const __be64 *)src)[1]);
>
> Are 'dst' and 'src' both 64-bit aligned? If not you'll get traps on some cpus.
Yes, they are.
>
> > + __skb_queue_head_init(&packets);
> > + if (!skb_is_gso(skb)) {
> > + skb->next = NULL;
>
> Why? Direct ->next and ->prev pointer accesses should never be used,
> along with anything that assumes what the implentation of skb lists
> looks like.
>
> Always use the helpers instead.
Ack, will do.
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/hashtables.c
>
> No way.
>
> Do not invent your own hashtables, we have several generic versions in
> tree and in particular rhashtable.
>
> If the generic kernel facilities have a weakness, fix that instead of
> rolling an entire new hashtable implementation.
That file might be poorly named; I'm certainly not implementing my own
hashtable, but rather using <linux/hashtable.h>. The file simply has
the various accessors for it that does the proper locking and
reference counting associated with the things inserted into the
vanilla <linux/hashtable.h> hashtable. I'll rename the file to
something more descriptive.
Jason
