Re: semantics of rhashtable and sysvipc

Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) We wouldn't expect this to ever happen in practice, and as you say, if it *does* happen, the size of the hash array is the last of our problems.
is the last of our problems.

[...]

1024

[...]

buckets afaict), we'd need the following:

[...]

size = min(ht->p.min_size, HASH_MIN_SIZE);
Bah, let's just go for simplicity, and just make it HASH_MIN_SIZE unconditionally, and just have a single fallback: if the first "normal" allocation fails, do one single unconditional allocation with HASH_MIN_SIZE and GFP_NOFAIL.
and GFP_NOFAIL.
I think that should work fine.
I think that should work fine.
Linus
Linus
Linus