On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 12:52 -0500, David Miller wrote:

From: Eric Dumazet <redacted>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:19:39 -0500

quoted

Switching SCTP to rhashtable at this moment is premature, it is
still moving fast.

I completely, and totally, disagree.

rhashtable actually _needs_ a strong active user like one of the
protocol socket hashes.

It's a step backwards to keep rhashtable in the shadows by only
allowing certain subsystems to convert to it.  That's really
incredibly stupid if you ask me.

You sure can disagree with me, but calling my opinion 'incredily stupid'
is not wise.

Let me check how stable is rhashtable :

# git log --oneline v4.2.. lib/rhashtable.c
179ccc0a7364 rhashtable: Kill harmless RCU warning in rhashtable_walk_init
c6ff5268293e rhashtable: Fix walker list corruption
3a324606bbab rhashtable: Enforce minimum size on initial hash table
a90099d9fabd Revert "rhashtable: Use __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC for table allocation"
d3716f18a7d8 rhashtable: Use __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC for table allocation
3cf92222a39c rhashtable: Prevent spurious EBUSY errors on insertion
7def0f952ecc lib: fix data race in rhashtable_rehash_one


Seriously, I think we can wait one release before 'en masse'
conversions.

I understand we would love to do that, but what is the hurry for SCTP,
that needed rhashtable so desperately that it could not be done before
2016 ?