Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:09:31 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Add SELinux module to 2.5.74-bk1 |
| |
James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au> wrote: > > +int hashtab_replace(struct hashtab *h, void *key, void *datum, > + void (*destroy)(void *k, void *d, void *args), > + void *args) > +{ > ... > + newnode = kmalloc(sizeof(*newnode), GFP_KERNEL);
From an API perspective, the GFP_KERNEL is a problem. Particularly as this code seems to require that the caller perform the locking?
The GFP_KERNEL means that the locking _has_ to be via a sleeping lock rather than a spinlock, and interrupt-time insertions are not possible.
Would be better to pass in the gfp_flags.
Comparing the complexity (size) of this code with the q-n-d hash tables which are currently used one does wonder how useful it all will be. The additional indirections are not needed with q-n-d hashes.
But if it doesn't significantly add to the overall selinux patch then I guess it makes sense.
A slab cache for hashtab_nodes would probably save a bit of space.
otoh: It would be faster and more space-efficient to require that the clients of ths code embed a hastab_node inside their structures and just pass the address of that hastab_node into here. When they do a lookup they retreive their original struct with container_of. That fixes the GFP_KERNEL thing too.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |