From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753600Ab2HCVlL (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:41:11 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:35031 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753052Ab2HCVlJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:41:09 -0400 Message-ID: <501C458E.7050000@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:41:34 +0200 From: Sasha Levin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120730 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo 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 References: <1344003788-1417-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <1344003788-1417-2-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <20120803171515.GH15477@google.com> <501C407D.9080900@gmail.com> <20120803213017.GK15477@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20120803213017.GK15477@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/03/2012 11:30 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. I forgot to comment on that one, sorry. If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the bits field size into account, or did I miss something?