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

[Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>]

On 09/27/2012 10:25 AM, David Laight wrote:
>>>> And even then, if we would do:
>>>>
>>>>  	for (i = 0; i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); i++)
>>>>  		if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[i]))
>>>>  			break;
>>>>
>>>>  	return i >= HASH_SIZE(hashtable);
>>>>
>>>> What happens if the last entry of the table is non-empty ?
>>>
>>> It still works, as 'i' is not incremented due to the break. And i will
>>> still be less than HASH_SIZE(hashtable). Did you have *your* cup of
>>> coffee today? ;-)
>>
>> Ahh, right! Actually I had it already ;-)
> 
> I tend to dislike the repeated test, gcc might be able to optimise
> it away, but the code is cleaner written as:
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < HASH_SIZE(hashtable); i++)
> 		if (!hlist_empty(&hashtable[i]))
> 			return false;
> 	return true;

Right, the flag thing in the macro was there just to make it work properly as a macro.

>> Agreed that the flags should be removed. Moving to define + static
>> inline is still important though.
> 
> Not sure I'd bother making the function inline.

I usually never make anything 'inline', I just let gcc do it's own thing when it compiles the code. If there are any objections
please let me know before I send the new version.


Thanks,
Sasha