Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Then, moving forward, if we go for default size for sets, we may need > a way to signal the kernel that the hashtable is resizable, in case > the user wants to dynamically update the maximum size (in such case, > the rhashtable implementation would be still useful I think). Isn't the 'dynamic' flag enough for that? I think rhashtable backend is still useful, e.g. for meters we might expect a very low size in practice, even if the upperlimit is large. -- 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
