David S. Miller a écrit :
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:30:23 +0200
[NET] hashed spinlocks in net/ipv4/route.c
- Locking abstraction
- Spinlocks moved out of rt hash table : Less memory (50%) used by rt hash
table. it's a win even on UP.
- Sizing of spinlocks table depends on NR_CPUS
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eric, did you hand-edit this patch?
Well, I know for sure I missed the memset(), so I resent the patch reading :
@@ -3118,10 +3148,7 @@
/* NOTHING */;
rt_hash_mask--;
- for (i = 0; i <= rt_hash_mask; i++) {
- spin_lock_init(&rt_hash_table[i].lock);
- rt_hash_table[i].chain = NULL;
- }
+ memset(rt_hash_table, 0, (rt_hash_mask + 1) * sizeof(struct
rt_hash_bucket));
+ rt_hash_lock_init();
Sorry again for the screwup. I was not aware diff/patch were working like that.
But please check the memset() is there, or else... panic for sure.
Look at this last hunk:
@@ -3118,10 +3148,7 @@
/* NOTHING */;
rt_hash_mask--;
- for (i = 0; i <= rt_hash_mask; i++) {
- spin_lock_init(&rt_hash_table[i].lock);
- rt_hash_table[i].chain = NULL;
- }
+ rt_hash_lock_init();
ipv4_dst_ops.gc_thresh = (rt_hash_mask + 1);
ip_rt_max_size = (rt_hash_mask + 1) * 16;
That hunk header says "10 lines in original, 7 lines in
new" yet the new part actually has 8 lines.
Don't hand edit patches unless you test applying them
after doing so. Even I manually generate the new diffs
to make sure I don't screw anything up.
I fixed up the diff and applied this patch, but I'd like
to avoid spending time on stuff like that in the future.
Thanks.
Thanks
Eric
-
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
