Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > - if (unlikely(!m || !*raw_cpu_ptr(m->scratch))) > > + /* XXX: fix this, prealloc and remove this check */ > > + if (unlikely(!raw_cpu_ptr(m->scratch))) > > The check should be cheap, but sure, why not. I'm just asking if you > accidentally left the XXX: here in this version or if you meant it as a > TODO: for the future. I can remove the XXX. I already have a follow patch that axes this conditional (m->scratch will always be allocated). > > /** > > @@ -605,6 +536,11 @@ static struct nft_pipapo_elem *pipapo_get(const struct nft_pipapo_match *m, > > * @set: nftables API set representation > > * @elem: nftables API element representation containing key data > > * @flags: Unused > > + * > > + * This function is called from the control plane path under > > + * RCU read lock. > > + * > > + * Return: set element private pointer; ERR_PTR if no match. > > Conceptually, we rather return -ENOENT, I'd mention that instead. Hmm, maybe? * Return: set element private pointer or ERR_PTR(-ENOENT). (Compiler should warn in case someone compares -ENOENT to return value without the ERR macros, so maybe i am overthinking this...). Thanks for reviewing!
