From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:41:34 +0200 Message-ID: <501C458E.7050000@gmail.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 To: Tejun Heo Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120803213017.GK15477@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: netdev.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? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org