Re: [5/6]: Dynamic neigh hash table growth

["David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:33:34 +1000
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static void neigh_hash_grow(struct neigh_table *tbl, unsigned long 
> > new_entries)
> > +{
> > +       struct neighbour **new_hash, **old_hash;
> > +       unsigned int i, new_hash_mask, old_entries;
> > +
> > +       BUG_ON(new_entries & (new_entries - 1));
> > +       new_hash = neigh_hash_alloc(new_entries);
> 
> Perhaps it'd be better to bound it based on MAX_ORDER rather than waiting
> for neigh_hash_alloc() to fail?

After reading this email I was about to add the check,
but then again, __get_free_pages() handles this case
not all that suboptimally.

I don't think it'll be a problem in practice.