Re: [RFC 1/4] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:27:49AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 08/01/2012 08:21 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:52PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >> If we switch to using functions, we could no longer hide it anywhere
> > >> (we'd need to either turn the buckets into a struct, or have the
> > >> user pass it around to all functions).
> > > 
> > > Create an outer struct hash_table which remembers the size?
> > 
> > Possible. I just wanted to avoid creating new structs where they're not really required.
> > 
> > Do you think it's worth it for eliminating those two macros?
> 
> What if someone wants to allocate hashtable dynamically which isn't
> too unlikely?

In particular, once this goes in, I'd like to add RCU-based hash
resizing to it, which will require wrapping the hash table in a struct
that also contains the size.  So, please do consider having such a
struct rather than relying on static array sizes.

- Josh Triplett

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>