On 08/02/2012 12:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 12:41:56AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> How would your DEFINE_HASHTABLE look like if we got for the simple
>> 'struct hash_table' approach?
>
> I think defining a different enclosing anonymous struct which the
> requested number of array entries and then aliasing the actual
> hash_table to that symbol should work. It's rather horrible and I'm
> not sure it's worth the trouble.
I agree that this is probably not worth the trouble.
At the moment I see two alternatives:
1. Dynamically allocate the hash buckets.
2. Use the first bucket to store size. Something like the follows:
#define HASH_TABLE(name, bits) \
struct hlist_head name[1 << bits + 1];
#define HASH_TABLE_INIT (bits) ({name[0].next = bits});
And then have hash_{add,get} just skip the first bucket.
While it's not a pretty hack, I don't see a nice way to avoid having to
dynamically allocate buckets for all cases.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
