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.
> >> +static void hash_init(struct hash_table *ht, size_t bits)
> >> +{
> >> + size_t i;
> >
> > I would prefer int here but no biggie.
>
> Just wondering, is there a particular reason behind it?
It isn't a size and using unsigned when signed suffices seems to cause
more headache than helps anything usually due to lack of values to use
for exceptional conditions (usually -errno or -1).
> > As opposed to using hash_for_each_possible(), how much difference does
> > this make? Is it really worthwhile?
>
> Most of the places I've switched to using this hashtable so far (4
> out of 6) are using hash_get(). I think that the code looks cleaner
> when you an just provide a comparison function instead of
> implementing the iteration itself.
>
> I think hash_for_for_each_possible() is useful if the comparison
> condition is more complex than a simple comparison of one of the
> object members with the key - there's no need to force it on all the
> users.
I don't know. What's the difference? In terms of LOC, it might even
not save any thanks to the extra function definition, right? I don't
think it's saving enough complexity to justify a separate rather
unusual interface.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
