Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:31:23PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:14:15PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >>>On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >>>>>+static struct hlist_head *tc_u_common_hash; >>>> >>>> Why not use rhashtable? >>>> >>> >>>It doesn't have to be so complicated, it is not fast path and >>>we don't have so many qdisc's and u32 filters in system >>>relatively. >> >> Well, it is easier to work with. So why not use it? >> > >OMG... You must have a different definition for "easier".
Apparently. > > >> >>> >>> >>>>>+ tc_u_common_hash = kvmalloc_array(U32_HASH_SIZE, sizeof(struct >>>>>hlist_head), GFP_KERNEL); >>>> >>>> This is over 80cols. >>>> >>> >>>Yeah, it doesn't harm anything, but I can fix it. >> >> At least checkpatch warns you about it. > >Not every checkpatch.pl warning worth your time. > >Jiri, spend your time on something more value than >80-cols. ;) I would not have to spend any time on it, if you would just follow the usual workflow. Clearly, you have some problem with that. I cannot say I understand it :/
