On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:46:43AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> It would not be fun to have to revert to the old way of hashing
> stations in mac80211...
>
> I'll be happy to test the patches when you have them ready.
Thanks for the offer. Unfortunately it'll be a few days before
I'm ready
On 08/05/2016 03:50 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 18:48 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:16:53AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
Hm. Would you rather allocate a separate head entry for the
hashtable,
or chain the entries?
My plan is to build support for
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:16:53AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> Hm. Would you rather allocate a separate head entry for the hashtable,
> or chain the entries?
My plan is to build support for this directly into rhashtable.
So I'm adding a struct rhlist_head that would be used in place
of
On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 18:48 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 08:16:53AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> > Hm. Would you rather allocate a separate head entry for the
> > hashtable,
> > or chain the entries?
>
> My plan is to build support for this directly into rhashtable.
>
> So I'm going to fix this by consolidating identical objects into
> a single rhashtable entry which also lets us get rid of the
> insecure_elasticity setting.
Hm. Would you rather allocate a separate head entry for the hashtable,
or chain the entries?
(Luckily) the colliding key case
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 03:18:46PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> So the question is can wireless handle seeing an entry multiple
> times? In particular, __ieee80211_rx_handle_packet would appear
> to process the same packet multiple times if this were to happen.
It's worse than I thought. In
