From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754034Ab2HCWZw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:25:52 -0400
Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:44847 "EHLO
	mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753577Ab2HCWZs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:25:48 -0400
Message-ID: <501C5005.2090107@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:26:13 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120730 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
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> <501C458E.7050000@gmail.com> <20120803214806.GM15477@google.com> <501C4E92.1070801@gmail.com> <20120803222339.GN15477@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120803222339.GN15477@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/04/2012 12:23 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 12:20:02AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 08/03/2012 11:48 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> So, if you do the following,
>>>
>>> 	struct {
>>> 		struct {
>>> 			int i;
>>> 			long ar[];
>>> 		} B;
>>> 		long __ar_storage[32];
>>> 	} A;
>>
>> struct A should have been an union, right?
> 
> I actually meant an enclosing struct.  When you're defining a struct
> member, simply putting the storage after a struct with var array
> should be good enough.  If that doesn't work, quite a few things in
> the kernel will break.

Ah, I see, I've missed that part.

Thanks!

> Thanks.
>