linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@elte.hu, ebiederm@xmission.com,
	aarcange@redhat.com, ericvh@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:30:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120803213017.GK15477@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <501C407D.9080900@gmail.com>

Hello,

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:19:57PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Is this supposed to be embedded in struct definition?  If so, the name
> > is rather misleading as DEFINE_* is supposed to define and initialize
> > stand-alone constructs.  Also, for struct members, simply putting hash
> > entries after struct hash_table should work.
> 
> It would work, but I didn't want to just put them in the union since
> I feel it's safer to keep them in a separate struct so they won't be
> used by mistake,

Just use ugly enough pre/postfixes.  If the user still accesses that,
it's the user's fault.

> >> +static void hash_init(struct hash_table *ht, size_t bits)
> >> +{
> >> +	size_t i;
> > 
> > I would prefer int here but no biggie.
> 
> Just wondering, is there a particular reason behind it?

It isn't a size and using unsigned when signed suffices seems to cause
more headache than helps anything usually due to lack of values to use
for exceptional conditions (usually -errno or -1).

> > As opposed to using hash_for_each_possible(), how much difference does
> > this make?  Is it really worthwhile?
> 
> Most of the places I've switched to using this hashtable so far (4
> out of 6) are using hash_get(). I think that the code looks cleaner
> when you an just provide a comparison function instead of
> implementing the iteration itself.
>
> I think hash_for_for_each_possible() is useful if the comparison
> condition is more complex than a simple comparison of one of the
> object members with the key - there's no need to force it on all the
> users.

I don't know.  What's the difference?  In terms of LOC, it might even
not save any thanks to the extra function definition, right?  I don't
think it's saving enough complexity to justify a separate rather
unusual interface.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2012-08-03 21:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-03 14:23 [RFC v2 0/7] generic hashtable implementation Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 14:23 ` [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 17:15   ` Tejun Heo
2012-08-03 17:16     ` Tejun Heo
2012-08-03 21:19     ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 21:30       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-08-03 21:36         ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 21:44           ` Tejun Heo
2012-08-03 21:41         ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 21:48           ` Tejun Heo
2012-08-03 22:20             ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 22:23               ` Tejun Heo
2012-08-03 22:26                 ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 22:29                 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-08-03 22:36                   ` Tejun Heo
2012-08-03 23:47                     ` Linus Torvalds
2012-08-04  0:03                       ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-04  0:05                         ` Linus Torvalds
2012-08-04  0:33                           ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-04  0:05                       ` Tejun Heo
2012-08-03 17:39   ` Eric Dumazet
2012-08-03 14:23 ` [RFC v2 2/7] user_ns: use new hashtable implementation Sasha Levin
2012-08-05  0:58   ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-08-03 14:23 ` [RFC v2 3/7] mm,ksm: " Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 14:23 ` [RFC v2 4/7] workqueue: " Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 14:23 ` [RFC v2 5/7] mm/huge_memory: " Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 14:23 ` [RFC v2 6/7] tracepoint: " Sasha Levin
2012-08-05  0:36   ` Steven Rostedt
2012-08-05 16:31     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-08-05 17:03       ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-05 17:12         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-08-03 14:23 ` [RFC v2 7/7] net,9p: " Sasha Levin
2012-08-03 18:00   ` Eric Dumazet
2012-08-03 21:14     ` Sasha Levin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120803213017.GK15477@google.com \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=ericvh@gmail.com \
    --cc=levinsasha928@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).