Hello, Sasha. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 09:47:19PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > I think this is problematic. It looks exactly like other existing > > DEFINE macros yet what its semantics is different. I don't think > > that's a good idea. > > I can switch that to be DECLARE_HASHTABLE() if the issue is semantics.
If this implementation is about the common trivial case, why not just have the usual DECLARE/DEFINE_HASHTABLE() combination? > > So, I think it would be best to keep this one as straight-forward and > > trivial as possible. Helper macros to help its users are fine but > > let's please not go for full encapsulation. > > What if we cut off the dynamic allocated (but not resizable) hashtable out for > the moment, and focus on the most common statically allocated hashtable case? > > The benefits would be: > > - Getting rid of all the _size() macros, which will make the amount of > helpers > here reasonable. > - Dynamically allocated hashtable can be easily added as a separate > implementation using the same API. We already have some of those in the > kernel... It seems we have enough of this static usage and solving the static case first shouldn't hinder the dynamic (!resize) case later, so, yeah, sounds good to me. > - When that's ready, I feel it's a shame to lose full encapsulation just due > to > hash_hashed(). I don't know. If we stick to the static (or even !resize dymaic) straight-forward hash - and we need something like that - I don't see what the full encapsulation buys us other than a lot of trivial wrappers. 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/
