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>
next prev parent 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).