Re: [PATCH v6] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

[Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>]

On 09/26/2012 03:59 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 14:45 +0100, David Laight wrote:
>> Amazing how something simple gets lots of comments and versions :-)
>>
>>> ...
>>> + * This has to be a macro since HASH_BITS() will not work on pointers since
>>> + * it calculates the size during preprocessing.
>>> + */
>>> +#define hash_empty(hashtable)							\
>>> +({										\
>>> +	int __i;								\
>>> +	bool __ret = true;							\
>>> +										\
>>> +	for (__i = 0; __i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); __i++)			\
>>> +		if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[__i]))				\
>>> +			__ret = false;						\
>>> +										\
>>> +	__ret;									\
>>> +})
>>
>> Actually you could have a #define that calls a function
>> passing in the address and size.
> 
> Probably would be cleaner to do so.

I think it's worth it if it was more complex than a simple loop. We were doing a similar thing with the _size() functions (see
version 4 of this patch), but decided to remove it since it was becoming too complex.
> 
> 
>> Also, should the loop have a 'break' in it?
> 
> Yeah it should, and could do:
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); i++)
> 		if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[i]))
> 			break;
> 
> 	return i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable);

Right.


Thanks,
Sasha