Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

Sasha Levin
2012-08-03T21:41:34Z

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?