On 27.01, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:16:04AM +0000, Thomas Graf wrote: > > > > No objection. I have a patch prepared which allows the user to > > provide ht->mutex himself so nfset can provide its own existing > > mutex to rhashtable and lock out the resizes from inserts, > > removals and dump iterations automatically That would restore the > > old behaviour of the nfset API without major surgery. > > If you take the mutex you might as well just make it synchronous. > There is zero difference. > > Maybe you misunderstood my email. I'm not making it synchronous > for everybody, just those that always take a lock on inserts/removals > and therefore don't need per-bucket locks. Actually I have a patchset queued that adds runtime additions and removals, both active and timeout based. So netfilter won't have pure synchronous behaviour anymore. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
