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

[Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>]

On 08/01/2012 10:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:06:50PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Using a struct makes the dynamic case much easier, but it complicates the static case.
>>
>> Previously we could create the buckets statically.
>>
>> Consider this struct:
>>
>> struct hash_table {
>> 	u32 bits;
>> 	struct hlist_head buckets[];
>> };
>>
>> We can't make any code that wraps this to make it work properly
>> statically allocated nice enough to be acceptable.
> 
> I don't know.  Maybe you can create an anonymous outer struct / union
> and play symbol trick to alias hash_table to its member.  If it is
> gimped either way, I'm not sure whether it's really worthwhile to
> create the abstraction.  It's not like we're saving a lot of
> complexity.

I must be missing something here, but how would you avoid it?

How would your DEFINE_HASHTABLE look like if we got for the simple 'struct hash_table' approach?

> Thanks.
> 

--
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>