Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20180719.234329.512279372120817504.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     neilb@suse.com
Cc:     herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, tgraf@suug.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH - revised] rhashtable: detect when object movement
 might have invalidated a lookup
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <87va9aqv05.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
References: <87fu0kt5m0.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
        <20180719.051440.931407144963903326.davem@davemloft.net>
        <87va9aqv05.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 16:30:34 +1000

> Does this ruling also apply to the bit-spin-lock changes and the
> per-cpu-counter changes that I have proposed?  These improve
> scalability when updates dominate.  Not having these in mainline
> would mean I need to carry a separate rhashtables implementation for
> lustre, which means code diversion which isn't healthy in the long
> run.

If it helps existing rhashtable users generally, then it is fine,
since it will actually be tested by upstream users.

Thanks.