On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 15:32 -0200, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:19:39PM -0500, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 23:50 +0800, Xin Long wrote: > > > > > besides, this patchset will use transport hashtable to replace > > > association hashtable to lookup with rhashtable api. get transport > > > first then get association by t->asoc. and also it will make tcp > > > style work better. > > > > SCTP already has a hash table, why not simply changing the way items are > > hashed into it ? > > Because Vlad asked to split the patch so it gets easier to review. The > direct change was quite big. > > > Sure, storing thousands of sockets in a single hash bucket is not wise. > > > > Switching SCTP to rhashtable at this moment is premature, it is still > > moving fast. > > Dave and Vlad had asked in the first review for considering using > rhashtable (ok, Dave didn't mention it by name). We did, and it seemed > nice beside 1 issue Xin found, regarding multiple rehashing, which I'll > highlight in a reply right away. > Said all this, I know this was your second email already against this > usage, but I have to ask, sorry: still really against it? Well, it seems that Dave is OK to fix all remaining bugs in rhashtable. I was not aware that 'we' decided to force rhashtable all over the places, because it looks so sexy and fun. Let see how funny it will be then. -- 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
