On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 05:48 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 02:50:54PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > This interface wasn't designed for use in softirq contexts. > > > > Well, it clearly was used there. You even gave it a gfp_t argument in > > rhashtable_walk_init(), so you can't really claim it wasn't designed for > > this. I see now that it's ignored, but still? > > I see. This was added behind my back so I wasn't aware of it. It's not used and actually I was wrong anyway: this would have also allowed doing the walk while holding a spinlock or with softirqs disabled, rather than from IRQ/softirq context. In any case, it's clearly working to iterate from this context, and doing a spinlock_bh vs. a spinlock in the rhashtable code isn't really that big a deal? Not sure I really understand your objection. johannes
