On Thu, 2007-26-04 at 00:18 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Would it make sense to have those vars as u32 instead of unsigned int? > > I'm ambivalent, "unsigned int" happens to be 32-bit on every platform. > So changing it would cause no harm :-) If unsigned int is always u32 i will leave it as is. I would have liked to just do a read_lock_bh when retrieving the table metadata; however, the state table lock is defined as DEFINE_SPINLOCK unlike the policy table which is defined as DEFINE_RWLOCK. Any objection to change the state lock to be RW? BTW, if i can get the SADinfo, then i should be able to set it from user space too;-> So that would be my next change unless there is objection. One other angle is start rejecting additions to the table after some point. To test, I wrote a little DOS tool that just kept adding entries until an OOM hit. It is a lot of fun to watch when you hit a point that swap is guzzling 2G or more. The add latency starts going up exponentially. I would like to enable the admin to set the proper param settings for upper bound. Exceeding the upper bounds of the max entries a table should have returns ENOMEM for any new entries. By default current behavior is maintained. Thoughts? cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
