From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Hunt Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rhashtable: require max_shift definition Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:56:03 -0600 Message-ID: <54DA2A13.5010204@akamai.com> References: <1423529311-26050-1-git-send-email-johunt@akamai.com> <1423529311-26050-2-git-send-email-johunt@akamai.com> <20150210005801.GA8951@casper.infradead.org> <54D9C18B.5090208@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , Patrick McHardy , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Borkmann , Thomas Graf Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54D9C18B.5090208@iogearbox.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 02/10/2015 02:30 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 02/10/2015 01:58 AM, Thomas Graf wrote: >> On 02/09/15 at 07:48pm, Josh Hunt wrote: >>> if ((params->key_len && !params->hashfn) || >>> - (!params->key_len && !params->obj_hashfn)) >>> + (!params->key_len && !params->obj_hashfn) || >>> + (!params->max_shift)) >>> return -EINVAL; >> >> You can drop the parenthesis around the new max_shift check. > > Also, I think the test should be expanded to check if there's > a grow_decision given and only in that case require max_shift > to be non-zero, otherwise we would require users who don't > want to expand their table to give a upper expansion limit. This is a good point. I'll make this change. max_shift restricts the # of buckets, but should there be an optional parameter, maxelems, to set a ceiling on the # of elements in a table also? If not, I believe users will be able to add an "unlimited" # of entries to the existing buckets, whether or not a grow_decision fn is defined. Josh