On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:19:39 -0500 > > > Switching SCTP to rhashtable at this moment is premature, it is > > still moving fast. > > I completely, and totally, disagree. > > rhashtable actually _needs_ a strong active user like one of the > protocol socket hashes. > > It's a step backwards to keep rhashtable in the shadows by only > allowing certain subsystems to convert to it. That's really > incredibly stupid if you ask me. You sure can disagree with me, but calling my opinion 'incredily stupid' is not wise. Let me check how stable is rhashtable : # git log --oneline v4.2.. lib/rhashtable.c 179ccc0a7364 rhashtable: Kill harmless RCU warning in rhashtable_walk_init c6ff5268293e rhashtable: Fix walker list corruption 3a324606bbab rhashtable: Enforce minimum size on initial hash table a90099d9fabd Revert "rhashtable: Use __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC for table allocation" d3716f18a7d8 rhashtable: Use __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC for table allocation 3cf92222a39c rhashtable: Prevent spurious EBUSY errors on insertion 7def0f952ecc lib: fix data race in rhashtable_rehash_one Seriously, I think we can wait one release before 'en masse' conversions. I understand we would love to do that, but what is the hurry for SCTP, that needed rhashtable so desperately that it could not be done before 2016 ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
